Skip to main content

Full text of "Joseph Nichols and the Nicholites; a look at the "New Quakers" of Maryland, Delaware, North and South Carolina"

See other formats



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 


A Look at the "New Quakers" of Maryland, 

Delaware, North and South Carolina 


Kenneth Lane Carroll 

Published By 

The Easton Publishing Company 

Easton, Maryland 

Copyright, 1962 by 

Kenneth L. Carroll 

All Rights Reserved 

Printed In The United States 


A Look at the "New Quakers" of Maryland, 

Delaware, North and South Carolina 

To the Memory of 






PREFACE __. ix 

FOREWORD by Henry J. Cadbury xi 






1766 TO 1770 .. 25 









AGES __. 84 





INDEX 105 


The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the rise of a 
number of religious sects native to the United States. Few of 
them have had as unusual an origin and as interesting a history 
as did the Nicholites of Maryland, Delaware, North and South 

The religious pilgrimage by which these people traveled 
from being an unchurched group of fun-seeking persons to be- 
coming a society of "sober and well-behaved men and women" 
closely followed that of their founder and leader, Joseph Nichols. 
Rather than splitting from an already existing religious body, as 
did many of the new sects, the Nicholites arose from a group of 
people with little or no religious connections. The end of the 
Nicholite Society likewise seems unique. The harmony, love, and 
cooperation which existed between the segments of the Nicholites 
when most of them sought membership in tSie Society of Friends 
is all too rarely found in other groups under similar 

My own interest in this movement sprang originally from 
three sources: connection with the Society of Friends, love of 
colonial history, and knowledge that two of my great-great-great- 
great-grandfathers, Zorobabel Marine (1736-1821) and Jonathan 


Willson (d. 1795), were members of the Nicholites or "New 
Quakers." Upon first running across the unfamiliar name of the 
Nicholites in late 1949 my curiosity about them was aroused and 
has continued to grow. In the thirteen years following this date 
a great amount of time and research have gone into trying to 
develop a picture of these people and an understanding of their 
religion and its meaning for them. This brief book is the result 
of that interest in the Nicholites. 

Some of this material, in the form of articles and essays, has 
appeared earlier in the Maryland Historical Magazine, Delaware 
History, North Carolina Historical Revieiv, The Bulletin of 
Friends Historical Association, and in Anna C. Brinton (ed.), 
Then and Now: Quaker Essays. All of these earlier treatments 
of the Nicholite movement are found listed in the bibliography. 

I should like to express my appreciation to Dr. Henry J. 
Gadbury for encouraging me to write this book, to Alyene Porter 
for reading the manuscript, and to Mrs. B. A. Petty for typing 
the various stages of the manuscript. 

Kenneth Lane Carroll 

Southern Methodist University 
March, 1962 


This monograph is a small chapter in the religious history 
of America, but a chapter worth recording as an example of the 
recurrent emergence of genuine concern for the purity of first- 
hand faith and practice. Dr. Kenneth Carroll has for some years 
diligently pursued the search for historic data about the Nicho- 
lites in out-of-the-way places and has succeeded in piecing to- 
gether an intelligible story. This volume digests eight earlier 
articles by the same author on the subject. Much remains un- 
known and is likely to remain so after such thorough gleaning 
of the field. In fact, the reader may well be surprised that so 
much can be learned about so obscure a sect. Their name is not 
listed in the usual books of reference nor their founder, Joseph 
Nichols, in the biographical dictionaries. Quakerism, to which 
the Nicholites seem only a footnote, was itself a minority group 
at the time and area of their parallel existence. Both had the 
habit of keeping records, in spite of the comparative illiteracy 
of the smaller unit. To these, to Quaker Journals, and to public 
archives the following essay is indebted. 

What we do know of them bears witness to the unconfined 
seedbed of fresh social sensitivity. The attitude of the Nicholites 
to slavery, even if later helped by that of Woolman and other 
Friends, may well have been independent. Strange as seems to 
us today the almost universal acceptance of slavery among the 
churches of the Eighteenth Century, any group which relied 
more on the inward authority of conscience than on the customs 
of environment no matter how provincial in horizon might easily 
take first steps towards emancipation. John Woolman often 
<*ame upon sensitive individuals and refers to "some of our 
Society and some of the Society called New Lights" as teaching 
Negroes to read. This reference is apparently to the Western 


Shore of Maryland and Virginia and in 1757, nearly a decade 
before Woolman's Journal mentions the followers of Joseph 
Nichols. New Lights was a widespread nickname in the American 
colonies, sometimes used, as Joseph Oxley found in New Hamp- 
shire in 1771, for people outstripping even the Quakers in 
austerity of scruple. Perhaps there is confusion; the Nicholites 
themselves suggest their nickname meant followers of Nichols' 
Light. There may have been anachronism in Woolman's own 
recollection. This single passage illustrates how the Nicholites 
and Quakers represented pari passu an evolving conscience 
against slavery that was not limited by sectarian boundaries. 

At first sight the influence of one group upon the other looks 
as though it were regularly Quaker influence on the Nicholites. 
That may be because to us the Quaker principles and practices 
are well-known and labelled. Plainly the Nicholite group was 
not a secession from Quakerism but independent. Their state- 
ment in 1778 to the General Assembly of North Carolina that 
while their principles were the same as those of the Quakers "for 
some reasons which we could render if required we hitherto have 
not thought it best to join membership with them," rouses our 
curiosity. We should like to know the reasons. 

In many ways their resemblance to Quakerism at its best 
was precisely in the delicacy of feeling with which they first kept 
themselves separate from Quakerism, though on very good terms, 
and then deliberately without offending their own hesitant mem- 
bers joined the larger and older Society. It is to be wished that 
in these days of church mergers equal charity and consideration 
might always prevail. 

To the general reader this story here presented is self- 
explanatory. To the historian it will be a satisfaction to have in 
brief and clear compass the information which Kenneth Carroll 
has been able to collect. 

Henry J. Cadbury 
Haverford, Pennsylvania 
March, 1962 


Toward the end of the colonial period of history there 
suddenly appeared in Maryland and Delaware a religious society 
known by the nanie of Nicholites or "New Quakers." Like the 
Rogerenes of New Jersey and Connecticut to the north and the 
Edisto community in South Carolina to the south, this indepen- 
dent religious group was very similar to the Society of Friends, 
or Quakers, in practice and principles. Of these three similar, 
yet different, societies, the Nicholites became the most wide- 
spread and the best known. At the end of the eighteenth century 
they could be found in Delaware, Maryland. North and South 

This very interesting sect which saw its rise in the rural area 
along the Delaware-Maryland border in the 1760's owed its 
existence to Joseph Nichols. A native of Delaware, he was born 
near Dover about 1730 and engaged in husbandry in Kent 
County, Delaware. Nichols received very little formal education 
but is said to have been "endowed with strong powers of mind 
and a remarkable flow of spirits." 

Growing to manhood at a time when many colonists were 
unchurched and when the influence of the Church of England 
was already declining, but before the beginning of the rapid 
sweep of Methodism through Delaware and the Eastern Shore of 
Maryland, Joseph Nichols and his friends spent a great deal of 
their leisure in the pleasures of the day — dancing, fiddling, horse- 
racing, and attendance at fairs where they were noted for their 
"frolicking and merriment." Lambert Hopkins, a contemporary 
of Nichols, has said that this was an age that was characterized 
by a "laxity of manners, and insensibility of mind" among the 
inhabitants of the Delmarva Peninsula. Futhermore, he con- 
tinued, "a general blindness with regard to their duty to God 
appeared mostly to prevail." 1 

In the 1750's Joseph Nichols married Mary Tumlin, daughter 
of Nathaniel Tumlin of Kent County, Delaware, who in 1755 
left his daughter a farm containing 115 acres. Joseph and Mary 

— 13 — 

Nichols retained this land until 1764 when they sold it to Ruben 
Oliver. Later Nichols bought 224 acres from Joseph and 
Elizabeth Chadwick and Winlock Wheeler in Mispillion Hundred 
on the south side of Ivy Branch in Kent County. Three children 
are known to have been born to Joseph and Mary: Rhoda on 
March 8, 1756; Isaac, January 22, 1758; and Rachel, September 
5, 1763. One of the daughters died sometime before 1770, and 
Isaac, "a poor infirm child who was disordered with the dropsy," 
died in 1773. 

Joseph Nichols' humor, vivacity, and ability to amuse others 
made his company very much sought after by the young people 
of his neighborhood, so that on First-days (as he and his 
followers later, under Quaker influence, came to call Sundays) 
he was frequently the center of a crowd. At these and other 
times of leisure Nichols often entertained his friends with an- 
ecdotes and songs. These pleasant gatherings of friends and 
neighbors continued in much the same way until there occurred 
an unfortunate accident which caused a profound change in 
Nichols — driving him to deeper thinking about the meaning of 
life. This episode he later described to Lambert Hopkins and 
others, saying that "he was at a frolic where they met together 
for merriment, sucli as dancing, etc. At this frolic he was accom- 
panied by a very particular and intimate friend, who was taken 
ill and died suddenly at that place. As he reflected on the cir- 
cumstance, it was made the means of producing a radical 
reformation in his life and conduct." 2 

History records many similar examples of radical changes 
which take place in the lives of certain people as a result of 
some such individual experience. Nichols, sensitive as he was to 
drama, must not have been unaware of the role that he was 
enacting: he was the friend who stands by and is transformed by 
a sudden death. 

The mid-eighteenth century was a time of growing religiosity 
in America just as it was in England. At the same time that 
John Wesley led the great Methodist revival in England, George 
Whitefield and others were helping the Great Awakening, which 
had begun earlier with the preaching of Jonathan Edwards in 

— 14 — 

New England, to spread up and down the coast. There was a 
growing search for a more satisfying religion hy many who 
found the conventional churches wanting. As a consequence 
there came a released religious enthusiasm which found formal- 
ism in the churches a symptom of spiritual decline and also gave 
a new sense of importance to many humbler citizens. This general 
religious development helps explain the religious pilgrimage that 
Joseph Nichols made and the way that his companions in mirth 
became his followers in religion. 

Nichols, who does not appear to have been outwardly 
religious in the early years of his manhood, underwent a spiritual 
pilgrimage that moved him from his early "libertine" attitude to 
one of serious outlook and brought him to see "with clearness 
the line of duty which was marked out for him to pursue, and 
that his own peace of mind required that he should yield an 
unreserved obedience thereto, regardless of the opinions and 
customs of others." 3 

Unlike many individuals who undergo similar religious 
experiences, Joseph Nichols did not withdraw from his old circle 
of friends. He continued to be surrounded by his former com- 
panions who were still seeking his leadership in pleasure and 
mirth. Nichols, however, had become convinced that he and his 
followers should spend their time in a more satisfying way. After 
expressing this concern, he suggested that they read a portion 
of Scripture whenever they met. Out of the respect which they 
had possessed for him in the past, his neighbors agreed to this 
proposal. With the passage of time these gatherings were trans- 
formed from scenes of mirth to "seasons of serious thoughtful- 
ness." Nichols' genius in friendship enabled him to move many 
of his friends and acquaintances along with him on this religious 
pilgrimage — so that as he became more "circumspect" in appear- 
ance, behavior, and conversation, so did they. 

At length Joseph Nichols became convinced that he saw 
clearly before him Iris duty — to preach and. if necessary, to 
ignore the customs and opinions of other men. And, so, he 
appeared as a "minister" among his former companions, con- 
vinced that peace and happiness could come only from seeking 

— 15 — 

and doing the right. It appears that Niehols began his ministry 
shortly after 1760, for he had already been preaching sometime 
before Lambert Hopkins became one of his followers in 1764 or 
1765. By 1766, when John Woolman made his famous tour on 
foot through Delaware and the Eastern Shore, Nichols seems to 
have become well-known in his community. 

It was, then, in the early 1760's that Nichols began his brief 
ministry which lasted until 1770. In this short period of less 
than ten years he traveled through Delaware, both the Eastern 
and Western Shores of Maryland, and even in the area of Penn- 
sylvania around Philadelphia. In his meetings Nichols sat in 
silence, as the Friends or Quakers around him did, until he felt 
himself called to preach. When he felt no such impulse, his 
meetings (which were held under the shade of trees, sometimes 
in private homes, and occasionally in the meeting houses of 
Friends) ended in silence. If asked beforehand whether or not 
he would preacli that day, his answer was, "I mean to be 
obedient." 4 

It was Nichols' belief that man must be obedient to the 
""Inward Director." As his followers later wrote, he "believed 
in the light that Shines in the understanding of man and woman 
that Discovers to them betwixt good and evil, right and wrong 
and reproves for evil and Justifies for well-Doing, to be the only 
means of Grace to enable us to work out our Salvation, and as 
he believed so he preached." 5 This aspect of his teaching was 
readily accepted by his religious followers; in fact, it was this 
very thing which earned them their title or name — "Nicholites." 
The Nicholites' own interpretation of the origin of this name, 
originally given to them in scorn, was this: "We amongst many 
other Soules became believers in the light and in a reproachful 
and revileing manner was called Nicholites as much as to say 
followers of Nicholses light." 6 

Lambert Hopkins, who accompanied Nichols on some of his 
preaching tours, reports that Nichols' preaching was "remark- 
ably powerful and afflicting to the wicked, and was made effec- 
tual to the reformation of many." Our one brief description of 
Nichols comes from Hopkins who many years after the death 

— 16 — 

of Nichols wrote, "My acquaintance with Joseph Nichols com- 
menced somewhere about the year 1764 or 1765, when I was 
about twenty-three years of age, and continued during the space 
of seven or eight years: in which time considerable intimacy 
subsisted between us, I being, as it were, his son in the faith. He 
appeared to me to be between thirty and forty years of age. 
In stature, he was about middle size, dressed very plain, prin- 
cipally in undyed clothes." 7 In this opening period of his min- 
istry Joseph Nichols preached a doctrine of self-denial. It was 
bis belief that all things which tended to exalt the "creature" 
must be regulated and subdued. This attitude can be seen also 
in the plain clothes which Hopkins remembered from his first 
contact with Joseph Nichols. 


1 — Isaac and John Comly (eds.). Friends' Miscellany: Being a Col- 
lection of Essays and Fragments, Biographical, Religious, Epistolary, Nar- 
rative, and Historical; Etc. (Philadelphia, 1833), IV, 258-257. 

2 — Ibid., IV, 257. See also Samuel M. Janney, History of the Religious 
Society of Friends, from its Rise to the year 1828 (Philadelphia, 1867), III, 

3 — Friends* Miscellany, IV, 242. 

4 ~ Ibid., IV, 257. 

5 — Nicholite Petition, to the General Assembly of North Carolina 
(Legislative Papers, House of Commons, 1778), p. 1. This original docu- 
ment is preserved in the State Department of Archives and History, 
Raleigh, N. C. 

6 — Ibid., p. 1. 

7 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 258. 




The greatest external influence upon Nichols and his 
followers during the formative period of their movement came 
from John Woolman of New Jersey. John Woolman (1720-1772) 
has been called "the most Christ-like individual that Quakerism 
has ever produced." 1 His life and thought touched thousands 
of people in his own age and through his Journal and essays 
still continue to do so to this very day. 

Woolman over the years came to feel that slavery was a 
great evil. This view arose from personal experiences and observa- 
tions in his own New Jersey area and from several religious 
journeys he made into the South in 1746 and 1757. A work 
entitled Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes presented his 
views in 1754; a second part appeared in 1762. Although this 
was not the earliest Quaker treatise published on the subject, 
it was certainly one of the most effective that have ever appeared. 

In 1766 John Woolman made the first of his famous "foot- 
journeys" into the Upper South — walking through Delaware and 
the Eastern Shore of Maryland. This "foot- journey" was a part 
of Woolman's attack upon the institution of slavery. He saw 
slavery as a cancerous disease, eating away at the moral and 
spiritual life of the Society of Friends and of America. Slavery 
was an evil that must be destroyed. As he made his way slowly 
through Delaware and the Eastern Shore, Woolman became an 
"embodied conscience," seeking to awaken people to the great 
evil of slavery which sprang from luxury and selfish profit (which 
alone made luxury possible) . 

Woolman had long felt that actions speak louder than words 
— that behavior is more convincing than speech. As he called 
upon others to cut themselves loose from the institution of slavery 
and to give up their love of luxury and ease, his own example 
underlined his message. Woolman had also begun to wear 
undyed clothes sometime before this 1766 journey southward — 
perhaps as early as the end of 1762. This strange costume became 

— 18 — 

his "cross"; he wore it as a protest against both slavery and war. 
testifying against the slave labor used in producing the dye and 
the love of luxury that led people to seek it. 

This journey in the early summer of 1766 through the 
Delmarva Peninsula took Woolman to a number of Quaker meet- 
ings in Delaware and on the Eastern Shore. After visiting Friends 
of Motherkill Meeting in Delaware, he moved on to Maryland 
and spent time among Quakers of Tuckahoe Meeting (near 
Matthewstown in Talbot County) and Marshy Creek Meeting 
(near Preston, in Caroline County) . Concerning these three 
places he writes: "At these our three last meetings were a con- 
siderable number of people, followers of one Joseph Nichols, a 
Preacher, who I understand is not in outward Fellowship with 
any Religious Society of People, but who professeth nearly the 
same principles as our Society doth, and often travels up and 
down, appointing meetings to which many people come. "2 
Woolman was struck at this time by the similarity between 
Nicholite and Quaker beliefs and practices — a likeness quite clear 
to the Nicholites also, for a little later on some of them wrote, 
"We Do profess and Confess the same principals that the Quakers 
doth, but for Some reasons which we Could render if required 
we hitherto have not thought it best to Joyn Membership 
with them." 3 

Woolman. after commenting on the similarity of the 
Nicholites to Friends, does not speak of any apparent differences 
between the two societies or of anything unusual about them 
which strikes his attention. The remainder of his brief descrip- 
tion of them runs as follows: "I hear some Friends speaking of 
their neighbours who had been Irreligious people that were now 
his followers, and were become Sober well-behaved men and 
Women. Some irregularities I hear have been amongst the people 
at Several of his Meetings, but from the whole of what I have 
Theard] I believe the man and some of his followers are honestly 
disposed, but [believe] Skilful Fathers are wanting amongst 
them." 4 

Woolman does not define the "irregularities" which he men- 
tions in this passage. Probably the word refers to the emotion 

— 19 — 

which pervaded the audience at some of Nichols' gatherings and 
which sometimes expressed itself in unusual ways. We are told 
elsewhere that "some would cry out audibly, and even prostrate 
themselves in the meeting." 5 Once again it should be remem- 
bered that the mid-eighteenth century was a time of growing 
religiosity in America. Frequently this heightened religious 
feeling expressed itself in various physical manifestations. 

The Journal of John Woolman does not record a meeting of 
Woolman and Nichols but speaks only of the presence of some 
of Nichols" followers at these meetings in the summer of 1766. 
At the same time, Woolman's account does not rule out the 
possibility of such a meeting. Moreover, it must be pointed out 
that on several different occasions followers of Joseph Nichols 
were present at Woolman's meetings. Even if Nichols did not. 
for some reason, meet this man whose outlook and message was 
so like his own, accounts of what he said and did would soon 
reach Joseph Nichols. Also it seems quite probable that Nichols, 
living not far from Philadelphia and surrounded by Quakers, 
may have been acquainted with some of Woolman's ideas before 
Woolman ever made this trip. Woolman's two-part essay on 
Slavery, published in 1754 and 1762, had carried the approval 
of the Overseers of the Press in Philadelphia and was widely 
read by both Quakers and non-Quakers. It is only reasonable, 
therefore, to expect Joseph Nichols and his followers to have 
been influenced by Woolman during this formative period of his 
movement's growth and development. 

The most obvious point of influence appears to have been on 
the subject of slavebolding — the main reason for Woolman's 
journey through the area. The extent of Woolman's influence 
on Nichols here is open to some question, for there exists the 
strong probability that Joseph Nichols had already developed 
his anti-slavery position shortly before the arrival of Woolman in 
June of 1766. Two bits of information support this point of 
view. The first is a claim made by Lambert Hopkins, who in 
1817 recorded that he then remembered about Joseph Nichols 
whom he first met in 1764 or 1765 and followed until 1770. 
Hopkins says that Nichols "was the first man in these parts who 

— 20 — 

preached against the evil of slave-holding; so far did his con- 
scientious scruples extend that he avoided putting up at places 
where the labour was done by slaves. His testimony in this 
respect met with some opposition, and even members of the 
Society of Friends opposed him; but it happened a short time 
afterwards, two Friends [Woolman and Sleeper] came down on 
foot and publically preached against the evil of slavery. Friends 
then received that testimony which they had refused from 
Joseph, and in a few years it became general among them to free 
their negroes." 6 

In an earlier essay entitled "The Influence of John Woolman 
on Joseph Nichols and the Nicholites," I questioned the accuracy 
of Hopkins' memory. 7 At that time I felt that this claim prob- 
ably resulted from a later rivalry on the subject between 
Nicholites and Friends. I therefore suggested that it probably 
had its origin in the fact that the early Nicholites, almost as a 
group, manumitted their slaves early in 1768 — several months 
before the Quakers of Marshy Creek Meeting did, but some 
months after Quakers in neighboring Talbot County did so. In 
another article published in 1961, entitled "Religious Influences 
on the Manumission of Slaves in Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot 
Counties," I once again expressed my feeling of doubt concerning 
the authenticity of Hopkins' claim. 8 

My views expressed in 1960 and 1961 were based upon an 
analysis of the manumission records of Dorchester County (which 
in 1768 still contained the area inhabited by most of the 
Nicholites) . Since that time I have examined the records of Kent 
County, Delaware, and have discovered that James Anderson, one 
of Nichols' earliest and staunchest followers, and his wife Ann 
Anderson freed a slave named Jane in the fourth month of 1766 
— two months before John Woolman arrived in the area. Jane 
is described as a "Girl Born of the body of a Negroe Woman but 
supposed to be begotten by a White man which said Girl accord- 
ing to the Custom of the Land is held in Slavery and bondage." 9 
Another manumission deed for the same county, dated May 24, 
1766, shows Paris and Margaret Chipman freeing a Negro boy 
named Thomas. 10 

— 21 — 

These two deeds of manumission are the only ones in which 
Nicholites freed slaves before Woolman's visit in the area. 
Although James and Ann Anderson and Paris and Margaret 
Chipman may possibly have arrived at their anti-slavery view 
independently, as some Delmarva Quakers also had, it seems 
wiser to accept these two cases as support for Hopkins' claim on 
the prior preaching of Nichols against slavery. 

If Nichols, as seems likely, did proclaim anti-slavery views 
prior to June, 1766, and if he did persuade the Andersons and 
the Chipmans to free their slaves, then it is also true, as Hopkins 
claims, that Nichols met opposition both from his followers and 
others on this matter. Examination of the deeds of manumission 
for this area shows that all other Nicholites freeing slaves did so 
after Woolman, accompanied by John Sleeper, made his "foot- 
journey" through the area. Woolman appears to have made it 
possible for Nichols to move the rest of his followers to free 
their slaves. 

Still another influence that Woolman may have had on 
Nichols and his followers centered around the type of clothes 
they wore. John Woolman. like his lesser-known contemporary 
Joshua Evans, had begun to wear undyed clothes sometime be- 
fore his 1766 journey. With the exception of Lambert Hopkins' 
testimony of fifty years later (with all the possibilities of tele- 
scoping facts and remembrances) , there is no evidence that 
Nichols wore undyed clothes before Woolman's arrival. There 
exists absolutely no evidence that the followers of Nichols 
dressed in undyed clothes prior to 1766. Woolman, with all the 
thoughts he had had on this subject since 1762, would have 
mentioned the fact. A few years after Woolman's journey the 
Nicholites became well-known for their undyed clothing. Quaker 
journalists of a later date, such as Isaac Martin, Job Scott, and 
Elias Hicks all show an interest in this aspect of Nicholite life — 
as did also the less sympathetic Methodist leaders Francis Asbury 
and Freeborn Garrettson. 

What little information we do possess about the early preach- 
ing of Nichols suggests that Nichols had already started himself 
and his followers on a movement from luxury and display to 

— 22 — 

austerity in appearance. Early in his ministry Nichols had 
moved some of his female followers to the point where they gave 
up all ornaments, refusing to wear flowered or striped apparel. 
Their husbands are reported to have been opposed to this de- 
velopment; and they therefore attended Nichols' meetings in 
order to ridicule this practice. The husbands, too, were soon won 
over. It was about this time that Woolman, dressed in undyed 
clothes, arrived in their midst. His great sincerity and his deeply 
spiritual nature won their admiration. One can easily understand 
how the Nicholites, already embarked on an ascetic pilgrimage 
insofar as clothing is concerned, would be brought to adopt 
Woolman's undyed clothing as the "official'' garb of their whole 
group (without catching the spirit that led Woolman to dress in 
this fashion) . 

Yet a third influence that Woolman must have wielded in 
this formative period of Nicholite growth and development would 
have centered around his peace testimony. Woolman was as 
opposed to war as he was to slavery. He believed that war came 
from the same basic causes as slavery — luxury and desire for 
selfish profit. In essays, letters, and public preaching he advo- 
cated a rejection of war. Rather than engaging in war man must 
live in the spirit that takes away the occasion of all war, seeking 
his true position in the one great family united in love and 
service of God. The Nicholites, a decade following Woolman's 
visit, possessed a very strong peace testimony. 


1 — Thomas E. Drake, Quakers and Slavery in America (New Haven, 
1950), p. 51. 

2 — Amelia Mott Gummere (ed.). The Journal and Essays of John 
Woolman (Philadelphia, 1922), pp. 271-272. 

3 — Nicholite Petition, p. 1. 

4 — Gummere, op. cit., p. 272. 

5 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 243. 

6 — Ibid., IV, 258. 

7 — Kenneth L. Carroll, "The Influence of John Woolman on Joseph 

— 23 — 

Nichols and the Nicholites," in Anna Brinton (ed.), Then and Now: 
Quaker Essays, Historical and Contemporary (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 168- 

179. See especially p. 173. 

8 — Maryland Historical Magazine, LVI (1961), 176-197. See especially 
p. 185. 

9 — See Kent County Deeds, Liber R, Folio 85. These records are 
found in the Kent County Courthouse, Dover, Delaware. This deed is 
witnessed by David and Sarah Hilford. 

10 — Ibid., Liber R, Folio 207. This deed is witnessed by Thomas 
Dunning and William Manlove. 

— 24 — 


FROM 1766 TO 1770 

Nichols' anti-slavery message received an added impetus 
from the visit of Woolman and Sleeper in the summer of 1766. 
Four of his followers, James and Ann Anderson and Paris and 
Margaret Chipman, all living in Kent County, Delaware, had 
freed their slaves in April and May of 1766, but no more of the 
Nicholites appear to have followed their example. Following 
Woolman's journey Nichols resumed this aspect of his message 
with increased zeal. He is reported to have said that "it was 
made known to him of the Lord, that in the process of time the 
slaves would be a freed people." 1 

As Nichols continued to direct the attention of his movement 
to this problem, several more of his followers in Delaware were 
moved to manumit their slaves. On August 29, 1766, Zachariah 
Goforth and his wife Sarah freed their Negro slave Casar. Their 
deed of manumission, spelling out their reasons for this action, 
shows what Nichols (and Woolman) had taught: "Being Con- 
vinced by the Inshining Light of God's Eternal Spirit that the 
above said Custom and Practice of Enslaving or Holding of 
Negroes in Slavery and Bondage During Life is an unchristian 
Custom and Practice Contrary to a Gospel Dispensation and 
Opposite to the Spirit of the New Covenant which Teaches us 
and all that are Led thereby to take off every yoke and Let the 
Oppressed go free and to do unto all men as we would they 
Should do unto us." 2 A year later, on August 12, 1767, William 
Anderson freed five slaves: John, age 26; Lydia, 25; and her 
three children. 3 

Nichols came to feel so strongly on this subject that he 
refused to stay in the houses of slaveowners. This, coupled with 
his re-enforced anti-slavery message, so convinced two of his 
followers in Maryland, William Dawson and William Harris, of 
the evil of slavery that they decided to set their slaves free. The 
public authorities in Dorchester County (for Caroline County 
still had not been organized ) discouraged them, saying that 

— 25 — 

existing laws contained no provisions for such an act. The two 
Nicholites were advised, therefore, to try the slaves with "free- 
dom" only for a time and then, after Dawson and Harris saw 
their folly, they might take their slaves hack into service. The 
two Nicholites remained firm in their intention, setting their 
seven slaves free in March, 1768, and each of them stating that 
freedom had hecn granted to his slaves "to satisfy my conscience." 
Daniel Adams and Richard Tull soon followed their example, 
also expressing the desire "to satisfy my conscience." 4 

The teaching of their leader and the example of these 
Nicholites in Delaware and Maryland made such an impression 
upon the other Nicholites that their position became the one 
accepted by the entire group. The Nicholites were consistent in 
their anti-slavery attitude and refused to hire slaves from slave- 
owners. Some Nicholites carried their zeal even further. James 
Horney refused to eat with slave-holders or to use any goods 
either produced or procured through slave labor. Horney, like 
Nichols (and Woolman), knew that when one is content to bene- 
fit from the fruits of slavery he enters, to some degree, into the 
position of being a slaveholder himself. 

When at a later date the Nicholites drew up a discipline, or 
set of rules, they incorporated in it the following, "Any Person 
Holding a Slave is not to be Admitted to be a member." Their 
list of queries, also adopted at a later time, likewise dealt with 
this subject: "Are Friends careful to bear a faitliful testimony 
against Slavery in its various branches, and provide in a suitable 
manner for those in their families that have had their freedom 
secured to them; are they instructed in useful learning, and is the 
welfare of such as have been set free attended to and the 
necessities of them relieved?" 

There are few stories about Nichols which remain. Of the 
handful that do, one deals with Nichols' giving his own coat to 
a poor slave who attended his meeting without one. Negroes, 
whether slave or free, appear to have been accepted fully and 
freely at the meetings of Joseph Nichols. Isaac Linnegar, "a 
part-colored man" and Rosannah, a slave freed by Daniel Adams 
in 1768, were married under Nicholitc care in 1769, and their 


children's births were recorded in the Nicholite birth records. 
This same Isaac Linnegar was farming the land owned by Nichols 
in Mispillion Hundred, Kent County, Delaware, when Nichols 
died at the end of 1770. 

When it came to the subject of paid ministers, Joseph 
Nichols' outlook again seems to have been influenced, consciously 
or unconsciously, by the Quakers around him. An important 
part of his message, therefore, was devoted to preaching against 
a "hireling ministry." This meant several things for Nichols and 
his followers. First of all, forbidden by their principles to 
acknowledge a man-made ministry, the Nicholites felt that they 
could not "consistently consummate their marriages before a 
priest although required so to do." 5 Finally the Nicholites 
developed a wedding ceremony which closely resembled that of 
Friends, which was eventually recognized as legal by the State 
of Maryland. The engaged couple, after having received per- 
mission from the Society, publically exchanged vows without a 
clergyman being present. All witnesses present at the ceremony 
were then asked to sign the marriage certificate. 

The earliest copy of a Nicholite marriage certificate which 
we possess is that of Isaac Charles and Nancy Payne who were 
wed in 1766. As the earliest recorded Nicholite certificate, it 
possesses a twofold interest — first, it is typical of those which 
follow and, second, it shows the likenesses to its Quaker counter- 
part. This certificate is as follows: "These are to Certify all 
persons whom it may concern that Isaac Charles and Nancy 
Payne Both Single of Dorchester County in Maryland having 
first publickly made known their Intention of marriage and No 
Lawfull objection being made they the said Isaac Charles and 
Nancy Payne Did on tbe Twenty-first day of the Ninth month 
one Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six in the presence of a pub- 
lick congregation of people at the House of Solomon Charles in 
Dorchester County afforesaid publickally acknowledge their 
marriage Engagement Each to the other the man taking the 
woman to be his Lawfull weded wife the woman taking the 
man to Be her Lawfull weded Husband In Consequence of which 
the woman hereafter assumes the Sir Name of the Man in Testi- 


mony whereof we the Subscribers Being present have hereunto 
Subscribed our names." Witnesses to this marriage were Thomas 
Addams, Sophia Branghon, John Edmondson, Jr., Mary 
Edmondson, John Flower, Moses Leverton, Joseph Nichols, David 
Payne, Martin Pegg, Joseph Standley, Richard Stanford, David 
Sulivane, Florence Sullavin, Esther Tull, John Wright, Levin 
Wright, William Wright. 

In addition to the problem of the marriage ceremony, 
Nicholite opposition to the "hireling ministry" expressed itself 
fas it also did among the Quakers around them) by objecting to 
the tax levied upon all citizens of Maryland for benefit of the 
clergy and institutions of the Church of England which remained 
the Established Church in Maryland until the outbreak of the 
American Revolution. William Dawson, apparently something 
of a zealot, expressed himself vigorously against a "hireling min- 
istry." As a result of his outspoken opposition to the "priests' 
tax" he was arrested and suffered imprisonment in the Cambridge 
jail which was about thirty miles from the place where he lived. 
It should be remembered that the section of Caroline County 
where he lived was still a part of Dorchester, so that the 
Cambridge jail served the whole area. 

Dawson's arrest soon became widely known, and the reason 
for his imprisonment was quickly noised around — so that great 
crowds gathered on the lawn outside the jail. Dawson had some 
of the apostolic zeal that marked Christians in the New Testa- 
ment period. Always eager to make known his convictions, he 
took advantage of this opportunity to explain his principles and 
to exhort his listeners to follow his example. Finally the author- 
ities felt it better to release him than have him preaching to 
multitudes through the windows of the jail. 

Frequently, when attacking the "hireling priests" of his day, 
Joseph Nichols spoke of the time which was approaching when 
their "churches should be deserted, so as to become a shelter for 
the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air." In the years 
following these predictions this actually happened in many cases. 
One after another, following the disestablishment of the Church 
of England, many Anglican (or Episcopalian, as they later came 

— 28 — 

to be known) churches throughout this whole Eastern Shore area 
became so deserted that the doors were left open, with the result 
that cattle and sheep often sought refuge in them to escape 
the extremes of summer and winter. 

William Needles, who noted the above development early in 
the nineteenth century, said that this "evinced the truth of the 
prediction of Nichols." He has described the whole development 
in the following paragraph: "Since the American Revolution, 
Episcopacy having lost ground and the Clergy being no longer 
able to force a maintenance many of the Churches (so called) 
on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, fell into neglect, were for- 
saken, and ultimately pulled down. One, in particular, situated 
in Caroline County, near Anthony Wheatley's, after being 
entirely deserted for about sixteen years, during which time the 
swallows literally built their nests in it; and undergoing partial 
decay, the flagstones with which the aisle was paved, were 
removed, and used by people for making grindstones, etc. During 
the Revolution, the lead which capped the brick work, or pillars 
that projected outside the building, was also removed, and 
finally, by general agreement of the neighbors, about the year 
1814, the building was entirely pulled down, and the materials 
carried off, each taking what proportion he chose of them." 6 

Joseph Nichols, in the matter of profanity and oaths, took 
a position strikingly similar to that of the Quakers. He and his 
followers sought the right of affirmation rather than swearing. 
He also taught his followers that, just as in the case of the first 
century Christians and of their own Quaker neighbors, they 
should avoid going to court to settle their difficulties. The Nicho- 
lites preferred not to appear in court at all (partly due to their 
difficulty with oaths), but when they were called upon by the 
courts or by public officials to interpret their principles and to 
explain their refusal to participate activity in secular affairs, 
they were always ready to give information and explain their 

It is in connection with Nichols' attitude toward the courts 
that we see another one of his teachings which was far advanced 
for his time — an attitude related in part to his disavowal of war. 

— 29 — 

This was his budding opposition to capital punishment. Although 
Nichols and the Nicholites never developed this thought to its 
logical conclusion, they did believe that they themselves should 
not be a party to bringing about a death sentence upon a man. 
As the Nicholites themselves later described their principles to 
the North Carolina Assembly, they wrote, "Another thing we 
believe we could not be clear in, that is to answer the law as a 
witness against any person that thereby they shalt be put to 

The Nicholites, under the leadership of Joseph Nichols, 
appear to have been caught up in the spirit of withdrawal from 
the world around them. In this attitude they were paralleling a 
development taking place in the Society of Friends. Down until 
the time of the French and Indian War Friends were both active 
and influential in the political life of Maryland and Delaware 
(then known as the "Lower Counties of Pennsylvania on the 
Delaware"). As a result of the growing emphasis upon war 
preparations, as well as the oaths connected with office holding. 
Maryland Quakers seem to have followed the example of their 
brethren in Pennsylvania and to have withdrawn from public 
life by the middle of the eighteenth century. The Nicholites, 
being one with the Quakers in this attitude, declined to accept 
any public offices. In one respect they were even more extreme 
than the Friends, for the Nicholites usually refused to participate 
in the elections which were held in their own localities. 

Joseph Nichols, impressed to some degree by the example 
of John Woolman, appears to have moved his entire following in 
this period along with him in his testimony against extravagances 
in dress, furniture, and address. The Nicholites, following the 
example and preaching of Nichols, became exceedingly plain in 
their dress. All along the Delaware-Maryland border were to be 
seen women wearing bonnets and the men hats of undyed or 
natural white wool. They believed that dyeing cloth stemmed 
from ostentation more than from true usefulness and so these 
"New Quakers" rejected it as a superfluous expense. In addition 
to this testimony against dyeing cloth, the Nicholites were also 
strong in their opposition to mixing colors which were natural, 

30 — 

such as black and white wool or black wool and cotton. They 
even refrained from wearing black leather or blackening 
their shoes. 

This austerity which made itself felt so strongly in their 
dress extended itself to other aspects of Nicholite life. No flowers 
were to be found in their gardens or around their dwellings as 
ornamentation. Nicholite furniture was of the simplest design — 
with stools and benches found in the place of chairs in the houses 
of Joseph Nichols and his followers. For ordinary travel the 
Nicholites usually moved around by foot [Could they be remem- 
bering the two Quakers traveling on foot?] ; but when the 
distance was great, Nichols and his followers would go either by 
horseback or light carts, for there were no elaborate coaches 
to be found within this religious society. 

This outlook of self-denial colored their lives so thoroughly 
that Nichols and Nicholites, in contrast to their earlier life, came 
to avoid places of diversion and amusement. Like many groups 
in the past and even a few in the present, Joseph Nichols and 
the small band of people who accepted his leadership came to the 
belief that there was a snare in too much schooling. Because they 
felt that education tended "to a dependence on literary acquir- 
mcnts in religious concern, instead of the qualifying influence of 
the Spirit," Nicholites seldom had their children taught at school 
beyond learning to read. 8 A number of them, it would seem, 
never were taught to write, for one discovers a surprising number 
of X's instead of written signatures among the names of witnesses 
to the marriages. In this respect the Nicholites differed radically 
from the neighboring Friends or Quakers after whom they seem 
to have patterned themselves in so many other ways. From their 
earliest days in Maryland and Delaware Quakers had empha- 
sized the education of their youth, often operating a number of 
schools for this purpose. 

Joseph Nichols, in the few brief years that he was among 
these people as their spiritual leader, shaped their lives along the 
lines which we have pictured above. His work was cut short by 
his deatli which took place in December, 1770, when Nichols was 
still a relatively yoving man. He toiled at his religious work until 

— 31 — 

the very end of his life and at death was satisfied, apparently, 
with his achievements. Concerning Nichols' last moments, 
Lamhert Hopkins records that "I have heard, that being asked 
on his death-bed in relation to the state of his mind, he said 
that he had delivered the messages of the Lord, had said all he 
had to say, and had nothing more to say. It is also stated that 
he closed his own eyes, and thus terminated his days in peace." 9 
When Nichols died at the end of 1770, he was survived by 
his wife Mary. His will, probated on December 31, 1770, also 
mentions two unnamed children. 10 According to the administra- 
tion papers filed in August, 1774, his son (Isaac, born 1758) died 
in 1773; but one daughter, name unknown, still survived. By this 
time his widow Mary had already been remarried to Levin 
Charles who had been one of Joseph Nichols' flock. 11. These 
papers also carry the note that his funeral had been provided 
at the cost of £ 2. 


1 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 258. 

2 — Kent County, Delaware, Deeds, Liber R, Folio 208. This manu- 
mission deed is witnessed by David Hilford and Benjamin Chipman. 

3 — Ibid., Liber R. Folio 207. This deed of manumission is witnessed 
by David Hilford, Samuel Robinson, and Thomas Dunning. 

4 — Dorchester County Land Records, Liber Old 22, Folios 254-255, 
308, 336, 356. 

5 — Ezra Michener, A Retrospect of Early Quakerism: Being Ex- 
tracts from the Records of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and the Meetings 
Composing It, to Which is Prefixed an Account of Their First Establish- 
ment (Philadelphia, 1860), p. 415. This was exactly the same problem that 
the early Quakers faced in both England and the American colonies. 

6 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 259-260. An examination of local his- 
tories of various Eastern Shore counties shows this abandonment of 
Anglican churches was a frequent occurrence after the American Revolu- 

7 — Nicholite Petition, p. 2. 

8 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 248-249. 

9 — Ibid., IV, 258. 

10 — Kent County, Delaware, Wills, Liber L, Folio 87. This will was 
witnessed by Covil Tumblin, James Anderson, and David Hilford. These 
records are found in the Kent County Courthouse, Dover. 

11 — Administration Accounts filed in the estate of Joseph Nichols, 
Archives Vol. A 37, p. 226. These are now located in the Hall of Records, 

— 32 — 



Joseph Nichols, the founder of the movement that came to 
bear his name, was a man of great gifts. The strength and the 
appeal which he possessed are easily seen in the way that Nichols 
carried his friends of the days of mirth and worldliness along 
with him as he made his own religious pilgrimage, seeking the 
summum bonum of life. His appearance as a minister had 
quickened the spiritual life of countless people, especially many 
who lived in what is now Caroline County and in upper 
Dorchester in Maryland and in Kent and Sussex Counties 
in Delaware. 

Nichols' career was relatively short — eight or nine years at 
the most. And yet the work he accomplished was destined to 
continue long after the man himself had ceased to be. Many 
were the people who had (locked to hear him and who had been 
convinced by the fervency of his zeal. While Nichols was still 
with them, these men and women had embraced his views and 
had conformed their lives to the principles which he had set 
forth in both deeds and words. Truly Nichols had sown his seed 
well, so that it grew and flourished. 

The band that Nichols had gathered together included all 
kinds of people: former slaves and ex-slaveowners, tenant farmers 
and landowners of moderate means, educated and uneducated 
persons, a few with potential ability to lead and many just learn- 
ing how to follow. The death of Joseph Nichols must have come 
as a real shock to the flock which he had gathered and which 
had come to look upon him as its shepherd. What were they 
to do? Who were there among them who would give the Nicholite 
movement the inspiration and leadership that it needed? These 
and other questions must have plagued the minds of the more 
thoughtful members of the Society in the months following his 
death, for Nichols died without bringing about any organization 
of his followers. 

As the Nicholites continued to think about the life, the 

— 33 — 

preaehing, and the death of Joseph Nichols, they become con- 
vinced that they should continue their existence as a people 
called out of the world around them — remaining true to all that 
their founder had imparted to them. Nichols, their guide and 
their example, was gone! And, so, it became increasingly clear 
to the Nicholites that they must organize themselves, setting up 
some sort of church government by which the life of the move- 
ment could be regulated. Their decision to organize came at the 
end of 1774, almost four years after Nichols' death. 

The Nicholites' decision was as follows: "Agreed by a meet- 
ing of friends assembled together on the fifth day of the twelfth 
month Anno Domy 1774 To Consider of Some Things Relating 
to the General Benefit of the Church of Christ the afforesd 
assembly did then agree to Hold their Monthly meeting at the 
House of James Harriss the first and Second day of the first 
week in Every Month (viz) the First Day for the worship of 
God. The Second Day to Consider of Such Bussiness as may 
Concern us, as Touching our Religious Society. The afforesaid 
assembly did then Conclude by the Consent and approbation of 
many more brethren that friends Should Carefully Collect their 
Mariage Certificates and bring them to the Said Meeting in 
order to have them entered upon Record." This decision to 
organize was signed in behalf of the larger Nicholite Society by 
Richard and Ann Accles [Eccles], James and Ann Anderson, 
William Batchlor. William Berry. Robert Bishop. Joshua 
Chilcutt, Noble Covey, William Dawson, James Harris, Mary 
Harris, William Harris, James Horney, John Richardson, Thomas 
Stanton, and William Warren. 1 

These fourteen men and three women, most of whom were 
living in Caroline County. Maryland, probably furnished most 
of the leadership and guidance received by the Nicholites follow- 
ing Nichols' death. The impetus to organize must have stemmed 
from this group also. William Dawson, William Harris, and 
James Horney all figure prominently in what little information 
we do possess about this period. Above all others, however, would 
stand James Harris, at whose house the group decided to have 
its Monthly Meetings. James Harris was born about 1733 and 

— 34 — 

was raised in the Church of England. His religious nature be- 
came evident while he was still young, although he later felt 
that he "did not make much progress in the path of True religion 
until near the thirtieth year of his age; about which time, attend- 
ing more closely to the witness in himself, he joined a pious 
people, distinguished by the name of Nicholites." 2 

James Harris, it would seem, was one of the several people 
who, prior to 1774, had "appeared in the ministry and exercised 
their gifts to the edification and comfort of the members." 3 By 
1780 Harris was clearly recognized as their leader according to 
the Journal of Francis Asbury, the Methodist leader who was 
active in the Delmarva area at this time. Harris' natural ability, 
spiritual insights, and relative economic freedom (at his death 
he owned six hundred acres in Maryland and an unspecified 
amount of land in Sussex County, Delaware) all qualified him 
for the position of leadership that he came to fill. 

When the Nicholites or "New Quakers" organized as a 
religious society in 1774, they agreed to hold their business meet- 
ings once a month, just as the neighboring Quakers did. At first 
this required only two days, Sunday and Monday (or the "first 
and second day of the first week" in every month). As time 
passed, however, the period of the Monthly Meeting was ex- 
panded so that it began on Saturday, or seventh day, and lasted 
through Monday, or second day. First there came on the seventh 
day morning a meeting of the ministers and elders of the group. 
Later during that day a "public" meeting, open to all, was held. 
Then, in a "select" meeting (i.e., open only to members), the 
Nicholites transacted the business of their religious society, with 
the men and women sitting together. In this respect the Nicho- 
lites differed from the nearby Quakers, who continued to hold 
separate business meetings for men and women down until the 
middle of the nineteenth century. On the other two days of the 
Monthly Meeting "public meetings" were held. It has been 
recorded that there were often a thousand people present at 
these services open to the general public. 4 

It was at these monthly meetings for business that the Nicho- 
lite marriages were solemnized. The couple planning marriage 

— 35 — 

would already have announced their intentions to wed at sonie 
earlier meeting and would have received the permission of the 
Monthly Meeting. Their wedding ceremony was quite similar to 
that of the Quakers upon which it must have heen based — -with 
no minister performing it but with the marriage taking 
place u in the presence of God and of Friends who are 
gathered together." 

What little information we do possess about the period 
following the organization of the movement in 1774 suggests that 
the Nicholites had a difficult existence for some time. For several 
years, until 1776. there was the question of "priests' wages" to 
harass them. 5 The authorities also insisted upon administering 
oaths to them — in spite of the fact that their religion forbade 
the Nicholites to take oaths. Some people, concerned with prop- 
erty rights and inheritances, questioned the legality of Nicholite 
marriages and the legitimacy of their children. And, to be sure, 
their scruples against war could only bring suffering upon them 
after the outbreak of the American Revolution. 

The Nicholites, like the neighboring Quakers who influenced 
them in so many ways, had a firm and unwavering testimony 
against fighting. Joseph Nichols himself died before the opening 
of the Revolutionary War; but many of his followers were sub- 
jected to imprisonment from time to time when, heeding the 
inner light, they found it impossible to take up arms and engage 
in battle. Many of the Nicholites were also subjected to frequent 
distraint of goods because of their devotion to peace. 

Some of the Nicholites limited their testimony against war 
to a refusal to fight, while others attempted to carry out their 
witness to its logical conclusion. William Dawson was so con- 
sistent in seeking to do what he believed to be right that he even 
refused to accept or use the paper currency which had been 
issued to carry on the Revolutionary War. Such behavior could 
only lead to suffering! The politicians of his day subjected him 
to great abuse, and his unusual conduct caused his neighbors and 
customers to criticize him severely. Yet, in spite of this, 
Dawson's honesty, sincerity, and integrity caused his business of 
making carts and spinning wheels to expand. He appears to 

— 36 — 

have been much more fortunate than the Delaware Quaker John 
Cowgill of Duck Creek, who saw millers refuse to grind his corn, 
his children sent home from school, and newspaper advertise- 
ments proclaiming him an enemy to his country — all for refusing 
to use paper money. On one occasion some local bullies seized 
him while on his way to meeting for worship, fastened on him 
a sign saying "On the circulation of the Continental currency 
depends the fate of America," hauled him to a neighboring 
town, and paraded him through it. 6 

Just when the Nicholites first petitioned the General 
Assembly of Maryland for relief from some of these difficulties 
under which they labored is uncertain. It was not until 1783, at 
the end of the Revolution, that we find the General Assembly 
willing to listen to their petition to be freed from taking oaths. 
In 1783 a law "for the relief of the Christian society of people 
called the Nicholites, or New Quakers" was enacted. It reads 
as follows: 

"WHEREAS the society of people called Nicholites, or New 
Quakers, have, by their humble petition to this general assembly, 
set forth, that they labour under many great and grievous in- 
conveniences, owing to their conscientious scruples relative to the 
taking oaths in the usual form, and not being admitted to declare 
the truth of their knowledge by solemn affirmation: And whereas 
it is declared in the thirty-sixth section of the declaration of 
rights, that the manner of administrating an oath to any person 
ought to be such as those of the religious persuasion, profession 
or denomination, of which such a person is one, generally esteem 
the most effectual confirmation by the attestation of the Divine 


"Be it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland, That the 
society of people called Nicholites, or New Quakers, shall be and 
they are hereby entitled to, and shall have and enjoy all the 
rights, privileges, immunities and franchises, that the people 
called Quakers are in any manner entitled to enjoy, under the 
declaration of rights, form of government, or any law or laws 

— 37 — 

in force within this state, any law, custom or usage, to the 
contrary notwithstanding." 7 

For some years following the beginning of the society in 
1774 the Nicholites continued holding their meetings at the 
home of their members, and they also frequently attended meet- 
ings for worship at the nearby Quaker meeting houses. John 
Woolman, as we have seen, reported them attending his meetings 
in 1766. We are told by traveling Quaker ministers that this 
continued to be the case down until the close of the eighteenth 
century when the Nicholites finally merged with the Society 
of Friends. 

After some years of existence as an organized society the 
Nicholites felt a need to have meeting houses of their own. 
The exact time at which the Nicholites erected the three build- 
ings that they came to possess cannot be established, for the 
minutes of the Society have disappeared. It is only through a 
careful examination of the marriage certificates that a rough 
estimate of the date can be made. One of these three meeting 
houses came into existence as early as 1778, for weddings between 
1778 and 1784 arc reported to have taken place at "Friends' 
meeting-house in Caroline County," whereas before 1778 they 
are simply listed as being at "a Friends' house." In 1784 mention 
is made of meeting houses at Centre (near Concord) and at 
Tuckahoe Neck (near Denton). Not until 1785 do we find men- 
tion of marriages taking place "at Friends' meeting-house in 
Northwest Fork," in the vicinity of Federalsburg. By 1785, 
then, all three of the Nicholite meeting houses were in use and 
were spoken of by name. 

As with the Quakers in their earliest period, so it seems, 
the Nicholites at first found no necessity to establish a definite 
set of rules to govern the behavior of their members. There 
was a freedom in the years immediately following Joseph 
Nichols' death. Gradually, however, there came a slow shift in 
emphasis from the pure leading of the spirit to some reliance 
on outward rules. More and more of the Nicholites felt the need 
of definite regulations by which the society might govern its 
members and they in turn might order their individual lives. 

— 38 — 

Just when they arrived at this decision is not known, but the 
only copy of their rules of discipline known to the writer dates 
from the "1st of the 1st month, 1793." 

In the front of the volume which contains the marriage 
records of this group we find that "The following was Con- 
sidered and Adopted for Rules Amongst us of the society of 
People called Nicholites or New Quakers''': 

1. That all Marriage Certificates be Recorded — Births and 
deaths also. 

2. Any member joining in a Marriage with one that is 
Not a member of our society do thereby forfeit their Right 
Amongst Friends or Allowing Such Marriage in their House do 
also Forfeit their Right amongst Friends. 

3. Any Member Attending Such a Marriage, shall be Called 
on to give a Reason for their Conduct in that Respect. 

4. Any Member Intending to Marry Shall first Inform the 
Elders of the Meeting to Which they Belong — and if No Objec- 
tion then the same to be minuted that a necessary Enquiry may 
be made of the Clearness of the Parties from others — and Consent 
of Parents or any other Necessary Enquiry may be made — and 
if Nothing to the Contrary Appear by the Next Monthly Meeting 
— the Parties to be left to their Liberty to Twice Publish their 
intention — and if no Objection Come forward they may Con- 
sumate their marriage According to the good order practiced 
Amongst Friends. 

5. Two or Three Friends of good Repute to be chosen as 
Overseers of each Monthly Meeting — and to Render an Account 
of their service and Duties to the Said Meeting Whensoever 
called thereto. 

6. Those who Neglect to Attend Meeting for Worship and 
Discipline at the Hovir Appointed — or fall Asleep — or Frequently 
go in and out or Otherwise disturb the Meeting — Let them be 
Cautioned privately and then if Need be Reprove them publickly, 
and if they Cannot be reclaimed by Christian Endeavours of 
their friends to be disowned. 

7. Any Friend Moving from the limits of one Meeting to 

— 39 — 

Another they Shall Procure a Certificate from the Meeting to 
Which they Belong that they may be Received as they are. 

8. When any friend of the Ministry purposes to Travel in 
That service they should First Acquaint the Monthly Meeting 
Where they Belong — in order for their Brotherly Advice from 
the Meeting. 

9. The Members of the Meeting only Have a right to set 
in Meeting of Business — Except on Application and Admittance 
by the Said Meeting. 

10. Any friend having anything to offer in Meeting of 
Business should stand up — the better to Preserve that good 
order of Speaking one at a time. 

1.1. Any Person Holding a Slave is not to he admitted to 
be a member. 

12. No Member go to Law with a Member — Except some 
urgent Necessity — Nor with others until first Endeavoring by 
Easy terms — Offering to have the same settled by others. 

Another thing which might be noted about the Nicholites 
in this quarter of a century between their organization and their 
merger with the Society of Friends is that, in addition to the 
rules of discipline which they possessed, they also developed a 
set of queries. Following the custom of Friends, it was the 
Nicholite practice to read these queries and then answer them in 
their Monthly Meetings — doing this about once every three 
months. The subjects which were dealt with in these queries 
concerning the spiritual welfare of the society resembled those 
of the Quakers. At some points, however, the Nicholites tended 
to examine things in much greater detail and with more precise- 
ness than did the Friends — particularly when they were dealing 
with the subjects of dress and amusements. This was to be 
expected, however, with the excessive Nicholite insistence 
upon plainness. 

The date at which these queries were produced is unknown. 
Joshua Evans, who visited the North Carolina Nicholites in 1797, 
recorded that "I observed that they had nine queries, which in 
substance were much like ours; these they read at times in their 
meetings." 8 Two copies, almost completely identical, of the 

— 40 — 

Nicholite queries have been located. The earlier one is a man- 
uscript copy sent by Anthony Whitely [Wheatley] , a former 
Nicholite, to Benjamin Ferris in 1847, and it is now located in 
the Ferris Collection at Swarthmore College. A second set, per- 
haps based upon Whitely's letter, appeared in the Friends 
Intelligencer for 1860. Both of these copies differ in three ways 
from the collection which Evans found in use among the North 
Carolina Nicholites in 1797. First, these two sets contain ten 
instead of nine queries; second, the query on slavery is next to 
the last instead of the final one; and third, their query on slavery 
is different from the one Evans knew. The fuller collection is 
as follows: 


1st. Are all Friends meetings, for worship and discipline duly 
and timely attended, and are Friends preserved from 
sleeping or needless going in and out of meeting, or any 
other uncomely bebavior therein? 

2d. Are Friends careful to avoid the occasion of any discord 
among them; and if any arise, is speedy endeavors used 
to end them; is talebearing backbiting and evil reports 
discouraged, and care taken not to speak that in absence 
of any that may tend only to expose them? 

3d. Are Friends careful to bring up those who are under their 
immediate direction, to the due attendance of our meet- 
ings, to plainness of speech, behaviour and apparel, and 
in frequently reading the scriptures and other useful 
books, and restrain them from reading pernicious books 
and from frequenting the company of those that are of a 
disorderly behaviour, and from the corrupt conversation 
of the world? 

4th. Are Friends careful to be at a word in all their traffic, and 
give good weight and measure, and avoid that evil 
practice of multiplying words to set their stuff to sale? 

5th. Are Friends careful to settle their accounts annually, or 
as often as need may require, so as to give their creditors 
no cause to blame them; and careful in their engagements 


and faithful to perform them; are the necessities of the 
poor duly inspected and they assisted agreeably to 
their circumstances? 
6th. Are Friends careful in the use of spirituous liquors to 
only make the needful use of them, and when their busi- 
ness takes them out amongst other people, are they 
careful to avoid light and needless discourse and not to 
be drawn away with the evil of the wicked? 
7th. Are Friends striving against the uncomely practice of 

laughter, when speaking about religious matters? 
8th. Are Friends careful to keep from making or buying any 
dyed, striped, flowered, corded or mixed stuff, and from 
all needless cuts and fashions, and bear a faithful 
testimony against the pernicious sin of pride? 
9th. Are Friends careful to bear a faithful testimony against 
Slavery in its various branches, and provide in a suitable 
manner for those in their families that have had their 
freedom secured to them; are they instructed in useful 
learning, and is the welfare of such as have been set free 
attended to and the necessities of them relieved? 
10th. Is care taken to deal regular with offenders in the 
spirit of meekness and wisdom, without partiality or 
unnecessary delay? 
Readers of eighteenth century Quaker Journals frequently 
run across the Nicholites. Traveling Quaker ministers seem to 
have possessed a tender feeling for those people who were, in so 
many ways, very much like the Friends. Sometimes they spoke 
out against the excessive Nicholite dependence on "outward 
righteousness," but at the same time they usually expressed a 
real appreciation of this religious group. 

It comes as a bit of surprise to encounter the descriptions 
of the Nicholites in the Journals of Freeborn Garrettson and 
Francis Asbury. Here the attitude toward them is not so friendly. 
In places the language of the Methodist journalist takes on a 
hard and almost bitter tone. This, in all probability, stems from 
the fact that in the late 1770's both groups were young, aggres- 
sive, and missionarv-minded (even to the extent of taking each 

— 42 — 

other's members). Asbury's first mention of the Nicholites, in 
1778, is incidental, so that nothing of his attitude toward them 
is expressed: "I then rode to Mr. Freeny's; and the untaught 
audience felt the weight of Divine truth. Mr. F. has been under 
religious impressions amongst the Nicolites, but suffers spiritual 
loss by the want of more fortitude.*" 9 The next reference, some 
sixteen months later, shows some of the tension that developed 
between these two societies. Asbury recorded, on January 23, 
1780, that "In the afternoon I had a long conference with a 
Nicolite, who wanted to find out who were right — they or we; 
a man of no great argument, and I fear but little religion; this 
makes these people so troublesome to us." 10 

Almost a month later relations between Asbury and the 
Nicholites seem to have deteriorated even further. As a result, 
there appears the longest passage devoted to the Nicholites in 
his Journal: "The Nicolites had been working upon several 
of our friends, and had shook them with their craft. These are 
a people who sprung from one Nicols, a visionary, but I hope 
a good man: he held Quaker principles, but the Friends would 
not receive him. A certain James Harris is at present their 
leader; they clothe in white, take everything from nature, and 
condemn all other societies that do not conform to the outward: 
If a man were to speak like an archangel; if he sung, prayed, 
and wore a black, or coloured coat, he would not be received 
by these people. They were almost asleep when the Methodists 
came, but are now awake and working with simple, awakened 
people. They love, like some other denominations, to fish in 
troubled water. They oppose family prayer as much as any 
sinners in the country; and have much to say against our 
speakers: profess what they will, there is nothing in names." 11 
The reason for the bitterness that lies behind and shines through 
this passage becomes apparent when one continues to read 
Asbury's Journal. One day later, on February 21, 1780, he 
records, "Some lazy, backsliding people among us are gone, 
after the Nicolites: let them go, for they were become as salt 
that had lost its savour; we want no such people." 12 

Freeborn Garrettson, who was quite active as a Methodist 

— 43 — 

preacher in the Delamarva area following his eonversion exper- 
ience in 1775. first mentions the Nicholites in 1779. At this time 
he was preaching in the neighborhood of Morgan Williams at 
Muskmelon, Delaware. Garrettson writes that, "Sunday, June 28, 
when I came to brother Williams's in Muskmelon, I found that 
a Nicolite preacher had been sowing his seed in the young 
society, and endeavouring to destroy the new-born children. He 
told them, 'It was a sin to wear any kind of clothing that was 
coloured; and that they ought never to pray but when they had 
an immediate impulse, and that it was wrong to sing.' Many 
people came together, but I perceived a considerable alteration; 
for some would not sing at all, and others sat both in time of 
singing and prayer. Some had taken oiT the borders of their 
caps, and condemned those who would not do as they had done: 
in short, some of my own spiritual children woidd scarcely hear 
me, because I wore a black coat." 13 

These quotations from Asbury and Garrettson show us how 
the Nicholites, after recovering from the initial shock that came 
with Nichols' death, continued to preach the message which they 
had received from Joseph Nichols. They likewise remind us that 
there were Nicholite centers in Delaware, even though these 
groups did not build any meeting houses as their Maryland 
brethren did. Being smaller in number to begin with and becom- 
ing somewhat depleted by the migration of some of their group 
to North Carolina, Delaware Nicholites probably found their 
houses large enough to accommodate their meetings. The small 
amount of material still extant suggests that the two main Dela- 
ware centers of Nicholite strength would have been in Kent 
County, around Mispillion Hundred, and in the Muskmelon 
section of Sussex County. 


1 — Another copy of this same decision calls for the collecting of 
birth records. These two copies are found in the front of the two volumes 
containing Nicholite marriage certificates and Nicholite birth records. 
Both of these are now with the records of Third Haven Monthly Meeting of 
Friends on deposit at the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. 

2 — Memorials Concerning Deceased Friends: Being a Selection from 
the Records of the Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania, etc., from the Year 

— 44 — 

1788 to 1878 Inclusive (Philadelphia, 1879), p. 85. This work is hereafter 
referred to as Memorials. 

3 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 247. 

4 — Michener, op. cit., p. 419. 

5 — The problem which Nicholites faced here was exactly that which 
harassed the Quakers and other non-conformists of that day. See Kenneth 
L. Carroll, "Maryland Quakers in the Seventeenth Century," Maryland 
Historical Magazine, XLVII (1952), 311-312, concerning Quaker difficulty 
over this matter. 

6 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 244: "He was enabled to maintain the 
ground of this testimony with dignity and consistency; and thus kept his 
hands from being defiled with blood, as he considered it." See Elizabeth 
Waterson, Churches in Delaware During the Revolution (Wilmington, 1925), 
p. 45; and James Bowden, The History of the Society of Friends in 
America (London, 1854), II, 308. 

7 — Laws of Maryland Made Since M, DCC, LXIH, Consisting of Acts 
of Assembly Under Proprietary Government, Etc., (Annapolis, 1787), Laws 
of 1783, Chapter 18. 

8 — Cited in Stephen B. Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery: A 
Study in Institutional History (Baltimore, 1896), p. 110. 

9 — The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury, Edited by Elmer T. 
Clark, J. Manning Potts, and Jacob S. Payton (Nashville, 1958), I, 282. 

10 — 

Ibid. ; 

, 1, 331. 

11 — 


. I, 336. 

12 — 


, I, 336-337. 

13 — Nathan Bangs, The Life of the Rev. Freeborn Gairettson: Com- 
piled from His Printed and Manuscript Journals, and Other Authentic 
Documents (New York, 1838), pp. 90-91. 

45 — 


A number of Nicholites from the Delmarva area left their 
homes and moved southward to North Carolina about the very 
time that those who remained were organizing themselves into 
a religious society. The specific time of the migration can not 
be stated with certainty. A close examination of available 
materials suggests that this development took place at the close 
of 1774 or in the very opening months of 1775. The unsettled 
conditions following Nichols' death, problems arising from 
religious establishment in Maryland, the availability of new 
and cheap land, and other factors combined to lead many Nicho- 
lites to abandon the section where their families had lived for 
a century or more and to settle in the Deep River section of 
Guilford County, North Carolina. 

The whereabouts of the minutes of the Nicholite Society 
is unknown, so that both the size and the composition of this 
early migration must remain conjectural. It seems probable that 
a small group of individuals or families made this trek southward 
to begin a new life and that they were joined a short time later 
by others from the Eastern Shore and Delaware centers. Just 
when this idea of starting a new life in another section of the 
country occurred to someone in the Society or to whom it first 
appeared is unknown. Perhaps it may have been Paris Chipman 
of Kent County, Delaware, who provided the inspiration and 
guidance for this migration. Chipman was one of the first Nicho- 
lites to leave the Maryland-Delaware area. Both he and Joseph 
Standley bought land in Guilford County in 1775, with Chipman 
purchasing 640 acres at this time. Or it may have been Jonathan 
Marine who first thought of migration as the answer to the 
needs of the Nicholites. There exists an old tradition handed 
down in the Marine family, and first made known to me by my 
distant cousins Miss Harriet P. Marine and Eleanor Marine 
Dashiell [Mrs. N. L.], that Jonathan Marine, the great-grand- 
father of James Whitcomb Riley, was the leader of a "Quaker" 

_ 46 — 

migration of some seventy-five people from "the Eastern Shore" 
to North Carolina in 1774 or 1775. 

We know that by 1778 the original Nicholite settlers in Guil- 
ford had been joined by such men as Alexander, James, and 
David Caldwell; Elisha, Levi, Michael, and William Charles; 
John, James, and William Horney; William Hubbard; Martin 
and Valentine Pegg; Thomas Twifford; and William Wheeler. 
Also present were Isaac Linnegar (who had farmed Nichols' 
Delaware farm at the time of Nichols' death) and his family 
and Levin Charles and his wife Mary (the widow of Joseph 
Nichols who had married Levin Charles sometime before August 
25, 1774) . The names of practically all of these people appear as 
witnesses to Nicholite marriages recorded in a volume still extant. 
By the end of 1773 almost all of these men had entered their 
claims to land grants in Guilford County. It seems possible that 
some of the half dozen members of the Harris family who 
applied for Guilford County land grants in this same year may 
also have been members of the Nicholite Society. How many of 
these men already possessed wives and families is not known. 
Yet, this must have been a sizeable community which the 
Nicholites established in Guilford County. 

Almost all of the land grants made to the above named 
Nicholites were located on Deep River, Wolf's Island Creek, 
Reed Fork, Matrimony Creek, and Haw River. It is interesting 
to note that these Nicholites settled in the western part of Guil- 
ford County — a section which already had a large number of 
Quakers in it. Perhaps these "New Quakers" desired that in this 
new home which they were creating for themselves in North 
Carolina there might be around them Friends or Quakers, a 
group which had proved both sympathetic and helpful to the 
Nicholites in their earlier life in Maryland and Delaware. 

Not long after the arrival of this body of Nicholites in Guil- 
ford County, North Carolina, there were those among them who 
felt the need for a meeting house of their own. At some unknown 
date such a building was erected near Deep River; it had already 
been in existence sometime when the Nicholites there were visited 
in the 10th month, 1789, by the well-known traveling Quaker 

— 47 — 

minister Job Scott. Probably this one meeting house was 
sufficient, for we read of no other such building among the 
North Carolina Nicholites. 

North Carolina required an oath on the part of the Nicho- 
lites — something which, as we have seen, their religion did not 
allow them to take. Therefore, in the summer of 1778, the 
members of the Society of Nicholites in North Carolina drew up 
a petition asking for the right of affirmation and making other 
requests of the "Generall Assembly and authority of the State 
of North Carolina." 

The Nicholite petition, which gives us a partial picture of 
this group and its beliefs, reads as follows: "To the Generall 
Assembly and Authority of the State of North Carolina we the 
Subscribers haveing understood that we was made no mention 
of in the house of Assembly as a Separate people from other 
Sosciates and that we had not a proper right to the Affarmation 
provided for the Quakers administered to us according to the 
law Except we get a grant from your authority for it, we have 
thought it Convenient to lay our case before you. We being a 
people who is known by the name of Nicholites, not that we 
gave our Selves the name but the man who was first in this per- 
swation who lived in the lower parts of Pennsylvania Government 
on Delaware bay and died in same place, his name was Joseph 
Nichols and as he believed in the light that Shines in the under- 
standing of man and woman that Discovers to them betwixt good 
and evil, right and wrong and reproves for evil and Justifies 
for well Doing to be the only Meanes of Grace to enable us to 
work out our Salvation, and as he believed so he preached and 
we amongst many other Soules became believers in the light 
and in a reproachful revileing manner was Called Nicholites, 
as much as to say followers of Nicholses light, but as to our 
name or religion it maketh no matter to vis what name we bear 
if we can but be found in the true Nature thereof, is our greatest 
aim, we do profess and confess the same princapals that the 
Quakers Doth, but for Some reasons which we could render 
if required we hitherto have not thought it best to Joyn Member- 
ship with them, so as we have given Some small Discription 

— 48 — 

that the Affarmation is not at our refusal according to law and 
how we came hy our Name and what we profess, we do humbly 
beg your authority to Consider us as a people who with Sincerety 
of Hearts Desires to live a Just honest peacible quiet inafensive 
life before god and man and that it is not in our hearts to 
make any resistance against your authority nor to assist Any 
other authority against you, but in all things are both ready and 
Avilling to Submit our Selves to the ordinences of men in as 
much we Can Answer a good Conscience both before god and 
man, We Do humbly petition and pray you in your authority to 
exclude us from such things as we believe we can't be Justified 
before god in, which we humbly pray God almighty the great 
authority of both heaven and earth to give you a Sence of the 
honesty of our hearts in this petition it is for no other Cause 
the lord we pray be our Witness but purely that we may be 
able to Answer a good Conscience both towards god and man, 
which things are those we believe we can't be Just before God 
to bear arms or lift the sword against our fellow Creature, in 
Justification of which we could Mention Sundry Sayings of Christ 
and his appostles, and by a liveing Sence of Gods laws written 
on our hearts bearing witness to the Same we fear to offend him; 
another thing we believe we Could not be Clear in, that is to 
Answer the law as a Witness against any person that thereby 
they Shall be put to Death, which if so be you can feal bowels 
for us in the two above mentioned perticulars — We Desire to 
ever be Thankful, hopeing the Lord will add to your peace for 
the Same, in Consiquence of which we desire to Submit our 
Selves — peacible Subjects under whatsoever Powers hath the 
rule over us in Case whereof we humbly bow and pray the great 
God and father of all good Gifts to endue you with his gifts 
and with his graces that thereby you may be able to make lawes 
tbat you may be Justified in the Makeing and we in the Full- 
filling, amen, in Witness wherof we have heirunto. Subscribed 
our Names this fourth day of the 8th Month, 1778." 

This petition was signed by nine of the male Nicholites: 
James Caldwell, Leavin [Levin] Charles, William Charles, Paris 
Chipman, John Horney, William Horney, Valentine Pegg, Joseph 

— 49 — 

Standley, and William Wheeler. 1 Two Nicholites, according to 
a notation at the end of the petition, were appointed to "wride" 
down to the capital with the document in case the Assembly 
should wish to make any further inquiry concerning the Society. 

At exactly this same time there were representatives of the 
Moravians and other religious groups present at the capital for 
the meeting of the Assembly. They were there for the same rea- 
son, seeking certain rights and privileges from the General 
Assembly. The arrival of the two Nicholites with their petition 
did not escape the attention of the Moravian representatives who 
were also petitioning the legislative body for the right to make 
an affirmation. These Moravians recorded that the Nicholites. 
whom they mistakenly thought to have separated from the 
Quakers, had come from Guilford to present a petition in which 
"they asked for certain privileges which, to their joy, the Assem- 
bly did not fully comprehend." The Moravians who insisted 
that their cause not be "combined with that of the Nicholites, 
which was probably what the enemy wanted," reported that their 
own petition "was willingly received, was read clearly by the 
Under Clerk, who usually does not read well, and was heard 
with unusual attention and quiet." It was w r ith "much less 
attention," the Moravians reported, that the Nicholite petition 
was received. 2 

The General Assembly passed a resolution on August 18, 
1778, granting the requests of "Quakers, Moravians, Dunkards, 
and Mennonists." 3 No mention, however, was made of the 
Nicholites in this act. Until the time that they merged with the 
Society of Friends, the North Carolina Nicholites continued to 
experience the hardships which they had hoped to have removed 
from them — for the members of the Assembly never did "feal 
bowels" for the Nicholites in the "above mentioned perticulars." 

The North Carolina Nicholites, living in the vicinity of Deep 
River, had their own business meeting each month. The two 
different Monthly Meetings, in North Carolina and on the 
Eastern Shore of Maryland, kept in close contact with each 
other, both by the exchange of letters and visits of ministers from 
one section to the other. Nicholite "ministers," like their Quaker 

— 50 — 

counterparts, were not ordained and were never paid. They were 
people whose spiritual gifts had been recognized by their 
societies which, in their business meetings, recorded these men 
and women as "ministers." It is recorded that the traveling 
ministers from the North Carolina group tended to be extremely 
conservative, especially in relationship to the Nicholite testimony 
of plainness and simplicity. This group experienced a great deal 
of uneasiness and concern when, in the process of time, some 
of the Nicholites began to substitute chairs for benches and 
stools which had been in use from the earliest days of the 
Society. 4 

When a minister moved from one Nicholite community to 
another in "religious service," he was required to acquaint his 
own Monthly Meeting with his intentions and then receive the 
advice and approbation of the Meeting. A minute or statement 
from the Monthly Meeting, stressing the unity of the Meeting 
with his proposed service, would accompany the traveling "friend 
of the ministry." Moreover, any Nicholite who changed his 
residence from North Carolina to Maryland or vice versa was 
expected to produce a "certificate of removal" from his old 
Monthly Meeting showing that he was in good standing with the 
people of his former home at the time that he decided to move 
on. 5 

It seems clear that there developed a much smaller settle- 
ment of Nicholites farther south than this colony at Deep River 
in Guilford County. The records of Deep River Monthly Meeting 
of Friends report that in the 10th month, 1792, Jonathan Marine 
and his sons (Jonathan, John, Charles, and Jesse) were received 
into membership by the Quakers. Jonathan's wife, Mary 
(Charles) Marine, and daughter Mary received Quaker member- 
ship early in 1793. Jonathan and his family are reported as liv- 
ing "on Gum Swamp near Little Pee Dee. "6 This was just below 
the North Carolina-South Carolina border. 

Another group with Nicholite connections living in this same 
section was the family of William Beacham [Beauchamp] . 
William Beacham and his sons (Henry, John, William, Charles. 
Curtis. Levi, Ellick, Matthew, and Russ), living near "Gum 

— 51 — 

Swarup on Little Pee Dee," were received into the Society of 
Friends in 1792; and Elizabeth Beacham and her daughter, 
Milcha became Quakers in 1795. 7 

Still another Nicholite known to have lived in this same 
section was Isaac Linnegar, the "part-colored man" who had 
married the ex-slave Rosannah and who in 1770 had farmed 
Joseph Nichols' land in Kent County, Delaware. Isaac asked to 
be received into membership at the Deep River Monthly Meet- 
ing of Friends in 6th month, 1798. This application was referred 
up through New Garden Quarterly Meeting to North Carolina 
Yearly Meeting which ruled that the Discipline was clear on this 
point. Thus, on the 1st of the 6th month, 1801, Isaac Linnegar 
[Linagar] , was received into membership by Deep River Monthly 
Meeting of Friends. About this same time Piney Grove Monthly 
Meeting was set up in this area of "Gum Swamp near Little Pee 
Dee," and Isaac Linnegar had connections with this meeting 
from 1803 to 1817. 8 

The Deep River Nicholite community in North Carolina 
was much larger and more stable than the younger and smaller 
one at "Gum Swamp near Little Pee Dec," just over the line in 
South Carolina. Several families had settled in the Deep River 
area in 1774/1775, and a much larger group had arrived in 1778. 
Other Nicholites from the Delaware-Maryland area, such as 
Major Anderson (son of James Anderson of Kent County, Del- 
aware), arrived from time to time during the years following. 
These, in all probability, more than made up for the number 
lost to the much smaller community in South Carolina. 

The North Carolina Nicholites continued to exist as an 
organized society down to the very end of the eighteenth century. 
Job Scott visited them in 1789. He was followed by other Quaker 
ministers who left accounts of the Nicholites in their journals: 
John Wigham in 1795, Joshua Evans in 1797, and Stephen Grellet 
in 1800. After Stephen Grellet's visit to the Deep River Nicho- 
lites in 1800, they drop out of sight, disappearing as a separate 

— 52 — 

religious body. It must be that the North Carolina Nicholites 
followed the example of their brethren back in Maryland and 
Delaware and merged with the Society of Friends. 


1 — This Nicholite Petition is to be found at the State Department of 
Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

2 — Adelaide L. Fries (ed.), Records of the Moravians in North Caro- 
lina (Raleigh, 1926), III, 1379. 

3 — Ibid., Ill, 1383. 

4 — Friend's Miscellany, IV, 250. 

5 — See the rules of discipline which are reproduced in the fourth 
chapter of this work, especially numbers seven and eight. These practices 
were taken over from the Quakers. 

6 — William W. Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genea- 
logy (Ann Arbor, 1936-1950), I, 826. 

7 — Ibid., I, 826. 

8 — Ibid., I, 824. See also Henry J. Cadbury, "Negro Membership in 
the Society of Friends," Journal of Negro History, XXI (1936), 177. We 
should note that Jarvis Stafford and his family also moved from the Del- 
marva area southward into the Carolinas and eventually joined the Society 
of Friends. 

— 53 


The Nicholite Society in Delaware, Maryland, North and 
South Carolina had only a hrief life, lasting down to the close 
of the eighteenth century or into the opening years of the nine- 
teenth century. At first thought it seems strange that its heing 
was so brief. But added reflection brings a sense of surprise 
that the Nicliolites existed as a separate society as long as they 

Almost from the very time of the organization of the move- 
ment in 1774, shortly after the death of Joseph Nichols, there 
was a realization that a great similarity between the Nicliolites 
and the Society of Friends existed. In their petition to the 
General Assembly of North Carolina (reproduced in Chapter 
V) the Nicliolites had claimed that "We do profess and Confess 
the same principals that the Quakers Doth, but for some reasons 
which we could render if required we hitherto have not thought 
it best to Joyn Membership with them." 

We have seen that the basic beliefs of the two groups were 
essentially the same: emphasis upon the inner light, pacifism, 
simplicity, plainness, and opposition to a "hireling ministry." 
The whole pattern of the Nicholite organization was based, con- 
sciously and unconsciously, upon that of the Society of Friends: 
the meeting for worship, the monthly business meeting, the wed- 
ding ceremony, certificates of removal, etc. Even much of the 
terminology of the Nicliolites was Quaker in origin. This can 
be seen rather clearly in the Nicholite practice of calling days 
and months by number rather than by name and in their use of 
"friends" as a name for themselves. 

Yet, there were also differences. The Nicliolites placed 
heavy emphasis (too heavy, the Quakers sometimes felt) upon 
plainness so that it became a sort of fetish, often seeming to be- 
come an object of worship to those who forgot the real reason 
behind this testimony. Job Scott, well-known Quaker minister 
who visited the Nicliolites in both Maryland and North Carolina 
in 1789 and 1790, recorded in his Journal that he was "much 

54 — 

distressed on account of the extreme formality which prevails 
among this people. They trust in themselves that they are 
righteous and despise others. This is too general among this 
people. Though truly, I do helieve that there is a remnant of 
true, inward Christians among them — humble hearted followers 
of the Lamb. May they keep their eye so single, as to be further 
enlightened, till their whole body be full of light; then will they, 
I firmly believe, see clearly beyond that lifeless, superstitious 
dependence on outward exactness, which so much abounds in 
many of their minds, greatly to the easing out or preventing 
of true Christian charity. Alas! This is the very disposition our 
Saviour complained of, as shuttering up the kingdom of heaven. 
It indeed does so, and prevents the individuals themselves, and 
those under their influence, from entering into a lively inward 
enjoyment of the coming, and the power thereof in the soul. I 
plainly saw them sitting in the outward court (as too many are 
in our own meetings) though in silence; many of them knowing 
little or nothing of true inward temple worship, in spirit and 
in truth, under the lively influence of the live coal from the 
holy altar." 1 

At the beginning of their existence as an organized society, 
the Nicholites were more advanced on the subject of slavery than 
were the Friends; but within a few short years this difference 
ceased to exist, for both Maryland and North Carolina Quakers 
made slave-holding a disownable offence. 2 Still another way in 
which Nicholites varied from their Quaker neighbors was in 
their practice of holding their business meeting with men and 
women seated together instead of following the Friends' custom 
of holding separate men's and women's meetings for business. 

From the very beginning of the Nicholite movement there 
existed, in spite of a few differences in degree or practice, this 
great similarity between the Nicholites and the Friends. It was 
only natural that the followers of Joseph Nichols and the 
Quakers should feel a certain kinship with each other and that 
their association with one another should continue with the 
passing of time. As has already been seen, many Nicholites 
attended the meetings which John Woolman held with both 

— 55 — 

Maryland and Delaware Quakers in 1766. Long after Nichols 
was dead and his followers had organized formally and erected 
their own meeting houses, many of the Nicholites continued to 
meet from time to time with Friends. 

At the same time that the Nicholites were coming together 
with the Quakers, we find a movement in the opposite direction. 
Countless traveling Friends who were visiting Quaker centers 
often included the Nicholites or "New Quakers" in the religious 
journeys that they had undertaken. Therefore, some of our 
earliest accounts of the Nicholites and their movement come to 
us from the journals which these traveling Quaker ministers 
kept. A list of such visitors after John Woolman would include 
Isaac Martin, Richard Jordan, Martha Routh, Elias Hicks, Job 
Scott, John Wigham, Joshua Evans, and Stephen Grellet. 

The Nicholites must have been in the thoughts of their 
Quaker neighbors also. This appears to have been particularly 
true of those Quakers avIio belonged to Third Haven Monthly 
Meeting on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. At this time Third 
Haven Monthly Meeting included the following Weekly or Pre- 
parative Meetings: Third Haven, Tuckahoe, Bayside, and 
Choptank in Talbot County; and Marshy Creek and Queen 
Anne's (or, as it was later called, Greensboro) in Caroline 
County. An examination of the records of Third Haven Monthly 
Meeting shows that on the 25th of the 3rd month, 1784, John 
Regester expressed a concern to pay a "religious visit" to the 
Nicholites and received a minute to this effect from the Monthly 
Meeting. It was evidently some time later that he made this 
journey, for the minute was not returned until the 29th of the 
12th month, 1785. 

A few years later, on the 29th of the 10th month, 1789, Mary 
Berry informed Third Haven Monthly Meeting of a prospect 
of "some religious service" to the Nicholites. This Mary Berry 
(1731-1806) was an esteemed minister of the Society of Friends 
and traveled widely in "religious service." In 1792 she visited 
the Virginia and North Carolina Yearly Meetings. In 1793, 
accompanied by Tristram Needles and Martha Yarnell, she 
visited some of the Friends' meetings on the Western Shore of 

— 56 — 

Maryland and in Virginia, most of the meetings in North Car- 
olina and all of the Quaker meetings in South Carolina and 
Georgia. A short time later, in 1795, she expressed a desire to 
go to the West Indies, but, because of war conditions, was unable 
to make the journey. When Mary Berry proposed this visit to 
the Nicholites in 1789, Rebeccah Bartlett, John Dickinson, and 
Solomon Charles (a former Nicholite) expressed a "freedom" 
to accompany her. Their journey took place very soon after 
this, for their travel minute was returned to the following 
monthly business meeting. 3 

Almost from the very beginning of the Society of Nicholites 
some of the group that Nichols had left behind found their 
discipline too straight and decided to move over into the 
Society of Friends. Solomon Charles was accepted into member- 
ship by the Quakers on the 28th of the 11th month, 1779. His 
five children and step-daughter were accepted as members shortly 
thereafter. Levin Wright and his wife came "under the notice of 
friends in order to become members of our religious Society'" 
on the 26th of the 5th month, 1791, and were received as mem- 
bers one month later. 4 In addition to these, there were un- 
doubtedly others who applied to Third Haven through Marshy 
Creek Meeting for membership in the Society of Friends. The 
same development was also taking place in Delaware. North 
Carolina, and South Carolina. 

One other "catalytic agent" may be mentioned here, as we 
try to understand some of the developments that led up to the 
Nicholite decision to merge with the Society of Friends. This 
would be the dying off of many of the older and more substantial 
members of the Nicholite movement. An examination of the 
wills for Caroline County, Maryland (where the Nicholites were 
most heavily concentrated) shows the deaths of William Harris 
in 1784; Levin Wright in 1785; William Kelley in 1787; William 
Stevens in 1790; Thomas Willis and Roger Wright in 1792: 
Thomas Stanton in 1793; Joshua Chilcutt, Nehemiah Saulsbury. 
and James Horney in 1794; Henry Ward, Jonathan Wilson 
(Willson) , Daniel Ward, John Harvey, and William Dawson in 
1795; Solomon Wilson and Lemuel Wright in 1796; and Henry 

— 57 — 

Swiggett in 1798. Examination of the records of Kent County. 
Delaware, shows the deaths of Benjamin Chipman in 1772; David 
Hillford in 1774; Zachariah Goforth in 1779; Richard Eckels 
(Eccles) in 1783; Sarah Goforth in 1785; James Anderson in 
1791; Ann Eckels (Eccles) and Richard Eckels, Jr., in 1796.5 

All of the above factors added up to produce a very impor- 
tant development. The more discerning Nicholites came to be- 
lieve that it might tend to be of mutual benefit if they could 
bring about a union of their group with the Society of Friends. 
Their reading of Friends' books and their frequent association 
with both traveling Friends and their Quaker neighbors had 
shown these "New Quakers" that the two groups were one in the 
vital, fundamental principles of their religious beliefs. There 
arose, then, among some of the Nicholites the desire to merge 
their movement with the Society of Friends. 

Among those Nicholites who were interested in the possibil- 
ity of a union with Friends was James Harris, a highly esteemed 
member of the Nicholites who had given the movement much 
of its leadership since Joseph Nichols had died at the close of 
1770. In addition to being one of their oldest members, Harris 
was also a minister among the Nicholites; he was thought of as 
a person "favoured with a spiritual discerning and stability in 
the truth." 6 Out of a serious concern over the situation of the 
Nicholites James Harris sometimes mentioned the possibility 
of merging with the Society of Friends to his fellow Nicholites. 
Great opposition to any such move, however, arose among his 

Many of the neighbors of the Nicholites advised them against 
such a union with the Society of Friends, for they feared that 
the Nicholites would relax in their self-denying course and in 
the integrity of their behavior. The neighbors felt that the 
Nicholites had "manifested by their lives, deportment, conversa- 
tion, and intercourse among men, the excellency of that principle 
which they made profession of, so that their upright and self- 
denying appearance, connected with their upright and charitable 
lives, furnished an example which was not without its effect on 
the neigliborhood and country in which they live." 7 

— 58 — 

As a result of the opposition which arose to this suggestion 
that the Nicholite Society join the Society of Friends, James 
Harris seems to have put aside the idea for some time, although 
he could not forget it. For some years, we are told, it "occasioned 
him deep exercise," so that he became more and more convinced 
that such a union would be "the Lord's work." Eventually James 
Harris and those who followed his leadership proposed at their 
Monthly Meeting that this union of the two societies take place. 
The Nicholite Society was not yet ready to accept such a pro- 
posal. The stricter members were opposed to the union because 
they feared that the members "would feel at liberty to take 
greater indulgences, than while they remained separate." When 
first made, then, the proposition did not meet with approval. 
After a lapse of more than a year, the suggestion was revived 
and once more was defeated. By this time, however, the oppo- 
sition had decreased very perceptibly. After the passing of a 
few months, the idea was advanced for a third time and still 
later for a fourth. Upon each occasion the opposition to this 
move became increasingly weaker. 8 

It is difficult to tell just when James Harris and his group 
were able to start this idea of union to spread among their fellow 
Nicholites. Isaac Martin, who visited the Eastern Shore Nicho- 
lites during the 8th month, 1794, found that " a great part of 
them are desirous of joining Friends, but others are opposed to 
it." Because the Nicholites were concerned that unity should be 
maintained among themselves as they dealt with this question, 
Isaac Martin was convinced that the subject would require time 
and patience for a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. Martin's 
recommendation, therefore, was for them to take the time and 
to exercise the patience needed. 9 Martha Routh, visiting the 
Nicholites in 1796, wrote in her Journal that "an apprehension 
took place, that they should not long be a distinct society from 
Friends." 10 

Finally it was clearly seen that the great majority of the 
Nicholites were in favor of a union with the Society of Friends. 
Those who were opposed to the measure then proposed that 
those among the Nicholites who were ready to join the Quakers 

— 59 — 

should make application for membership in the Society of 
Friends. Those who were not prepared to seek Friends' member- 
ship should remain as they were. It was the feeling of the group 
which opposed union that such a development as they were now 
suggesting would produce in the future the positive result of 
causing themselves to examine seriously their own situation and 
that, eventually, they also might be prepared to join those who 
were now about to become members of the Society of Friends. H 

At the very time that the Nicholites had agreed that a sep- 
aration should take place, there occurred a development which 
caused the group seeking Quaker membership to postpone its 
application to be received into the Society of Friends. There had 
arisen among the Nicholites, just prior to this period, several 
persons new in the ministry, people whose appearance in the 
ministry was not generally approved. One of these persons 
sought to introduce singing into the Nicholite services of wor- 
ship. This unidentified person was probably one of the people 
won over from the Methodists, a development which we noted in 
Chapter IV as causing both Bishop Asbury and Freeborn 
Garrettson to become somewhat angry. Methodism, which was 
sweeping the Delmarva Peninsula at the end of the eighteenth 
century, was marked by its emphasis on singing. The Nicholites 
felt that singing of "set" hymns (a sort of secondhand religious 
experience) was not consistent with their dependence upon the 
leading of the Spirit. They, therefore, would not allow the 
introduction of singing. 

This small group of new ministers and their followers also 
opposed the acceptance and administration of a written discipline 
which the Nicholites had adopted in 1793 (see Chapter IV). 
They claimed that each person had the right and privilege to 
follow the dictates of his own mind and conscience, rather than 
permitting any other person to control him or submitting to the 
rules of the Nicholite Society. These views found acceptance 
among some members of the Society of Nicholites, but a far 
greater proportion of the Society disapproved of them. There 
arose a general feeling that if these new ministers and the few 

— 60 — 

who followed them could not he brought to "a proper sense of the 
tendency thereof," they should be disowned. 12 

This was the situation which arose among the Nicholites at 
the veiy time that the separation had been agreed upon. Now 
it was felt that those who were to remain in the old society 
would be so reduced in membership that they might not be 
able to deal with this "libertine spirit" which had suddenly 
appeared among them. For this reason they asked their friends 
who were about to leave them to remain as Nicholites long 
enough for some satisfactory handling of this problem to be 
worked out. Those Nicholites who were desirous of becoming 
Quakers accepted this plea and remained in the old movement 
until two of the unsatisfactory persons who had appeared in the 
ministry without the approval of the society, and who had con- 
tinued to refuse the advice of their brethren, were disowned. It 
was then felt that conditions were satisfactory for the separation 
to take place in the way that had been agreed upon. 13 

The application of this group of Nicholites for acceptance 
into the Society of Friends is recorded in the minutes of Third 
Haven Monthly Meeting for the 12th of the 10th month, 1797. 
Ezra Michener, a century ago, reported that on a loose sheet in 
one of the record books he found a document which he felt 
conveyed the feeling of the applying Nicholites much better than 
that one recorded in the Third Haven minutes. This earlier 
application, as recorded by Michener, read as follows: "Where- 
as, a part and perhaps the greater part, of the people in session, 
called Nicholites, have had a concern, at sundry times, to be 
united with the people called Quakers, believing it might be a 
benefit to us, and, we trust, no hurt to them, and perhaps more 
generally useful to others; and under this apprehension and 
prospect of good being done, we have believed it to be our duty 
to inform you of the desire, we have to be one with you, truly 
united to the Head of the True Church, and one to another; 
so have proceeded to enroll the names of those who desire the 
unity proposed should be brought about. The next larger num- 
ber is those that see not their way into the matter, but are not 
inclined to oppose. We have also sent forward the names of 

— 61 — 

those that have a birthright only who iinite with the matter. 
Given forth from Centre Monthly Meeting, held the 5th of the 
eighth month, 1797, and signed on behalf of the same, by Seth 
Hill Evitts, Clerk." Michener then described the three lists 
mentioned above: "First, one of eighty names, 'all of which is 
agreed to the aforesaid proposal.' Next, one of twenty names, 
marked 'neuter;' and one of twelve names, marked 'nominal.' 
The first list is headed by James Harris." 14 

For some unknown reason the application found by 
Michener and quoted above was not submitted but was replaced 
by another one almost two months later. In the minutes of 
Third Haven Meeting there is found a petition dated the 30th 
day of the 9th month, 1797, and reading as follows: "To the 
members of Third Haven Monthly Meeting to be held the 25th 
day of the 10th month, 1797, we the people called Nicollites 
berein present to your view and serious consideration the names 
of those who incline to unite with you in membership." 15 This 
application or petition bears the following names: James 
Anderson and wife, Celia; Celia Bartlett; Esther Bartlett; 
Edward Barton and wife, Anne; John Barton; Mary Ann 
Barton; James Boon and wife, Mary; Esther Chance; Elijah 
Charles; Euphama Charles; Mary Charles; Willis Charles and 
wife, Sarah; Esther Chilcutt; Margaret Connelly; 

Elisha Dawson and wife, Lydia; John Dawson and wife, 
Anne; Anne Emmerson; Samuel Emmerson; Seth Hill Evitts; 
George Hardy Fisher and son, Daniel; Richard Foxwell; 
Elizabeth Frampton; William Frampton and wife, Margaret; 
Preston Godwin, wife, Tabitha and sons, Henry and Seth; 
Thomas Gray and wife, Sarah; William Gray, wife, Elizabeth 
and daughters, Anna and Lovey; Catherine Harvey; James 
Harris, wife, Mary and son, Peter; Jesse Hubert and wife, 
Prissilla; Sarah Jenkins; Dennis Kelly and wife, Hannah; 
Solomon Kenton; Moses Leverton and wife, Rachel; Anne Love; 
William Melona and wife, Sophia; James Murpha and wife, 
Mary; William Murpha and wife, Ruth; 

William Peters; William Poits, wife, Ada and daughter, 
Sarah; Levin Pool and wife, Elizabeth; John Pritchett; Mary 

— 62 

Richardson; Archabald Ross and wife, Elizabeth; Elijah Russel 
and wife, Esther; Jonathan Shannahan and wife, Margaret; 
Mary Stevens; Johnson Swiggett and wife, Mary; Sarah Swiggett; 
Elizabeth Twiford; Richard Vickers and wife, Celia; Sarah 
Vickers; Anthony Wheatly and wife, Sophia; James Wilson and 
wife, Sarah; Rebeccah Wilson; William Wilson, son, John and 
daughter, Anne; Daniel Wright and wife, Sarah; Elizabeth 
Wright and daughter, Mary; Hatfield Wright and wife, Lucrecia; 
Jacob Wright and wife, Rhoda; James Wright and wife, Sarah; 
John Wright and wife, Esther. 

This application of the above named Nicholites who were 
seeking membership in the Society of Friends was presented to 
the representatives of the Marshy Creek Preparative Meeting, 
near what is now Preston, Maryland, and they in turn submitted 
it to Third Haven Monthly Meeting for action. This application 
came from "Centre Monthly Meeting of the people called 
Nicollites" and was signed by Seth Hill Evitts, Clerk. 

Upon receipt of this application from the Nicholites, Third 
Haven Monthly Meeting appointed a committee of its own mem- 
bers "to take Opportunity with them in a Collective Capacity 
and treat the matter with them as way may open as to the 
ground of their request and report of their situation and state 
of unaty in regard thereof to our next Monthly Meeting." The 
committee then reported back on the 16th of the 11th month, 
1797, that, "Many of them expressing in a tender manner their 
desire of becoming united with friends in a Society connection 
as Truth may open the way thereto, which Appears to be their 
prevailing Sentament, although some few have not given in to 
the proposal. We may further observe that most of them are 
Situated so remote from any of our meetings as renders the 
frequent attendance of them impractical, that they have three 
meeting houses where they meet together for their keeping up 
those meetings we did not see ocation to throw any discourage- 
ment before them. But are of the opinion it may be proper to 
represent the cause to the Quarterly meeting for their advice 
and assistance." 16 

Southern Quarterly Meeting of Friends, made up of Quaker 

— 63 — 

meetings in Kent and Sussex Counties in Delaware and in Kent. 
Caroline, and Talbot Counties in Maryland, felt that it would be 
advisable to visit the Nicholites individually or by families "in 
order to feel after their growth and standing in the Truth." 
Third Haven Meeting appointed a committee for this purpose 
and was assisted in the task by a committee also set up by the 
Quarterly Meeting. Early in 1798, on the 11th of the 1st month, 
the committee reported back that it felt "free" that sixty-nine of 
the Nicholites should be received into membership by the 
Quakers. At this same time a small number of additional Nicho- 
lites applied for membership in the Society of Friends; and 
later, within the next year and a half, four other groups of 
Nicholites (ranging in size from three to thirteen) requested 
that they be received into the Society of Friends as members. 17 
It was about this same time that Elias Hicks wrote a letter to his 
wife and said that he "could understand the hesitation of some, 
and hoped that those who did join the Meetings would not 'be 
hurt by the great and prevailing deficiencies manifested' among 
the Quakers whose Society they joined." 18 The new members 
seemed satisfied with their new spiritual home, for the minutes 
of Third Haven Monthly Meeting (and later of Northwest Fork 
Monthly Meeting) show that a number of people who had come 
from the old Nicholite Society asked to have their children taken 
into the Society of Friends as members. 

Following this acceptance of many of the Nicholites into 
membership by Third Haven Monthly Meeting there came into 
existance a very interesting relationship between those who 
remained Nicholites and those who had chosen to withdraw and 
become Quakers. The three meeting houses which the old group 
had possessed were in the name of the Nicholite Society. Those 
who had left the Nicholites to become Quakers felt that they 
had forfeited, by this move, any claims which they had possessed 
to these buildings. Those who remained Nicholites thought dif- 
ferently, however, and therefore allowed all to continue to meet 
together for worship in two of their meeting houses, Centre and 
Northwest Fork. The only change required was that their mid- 
week meetings be held on different days, so that the Nicholites 

— 64 — 

might continue to hold their business meetings among themselves. 
The two groups, Nicholite and Quaker, continued to worship 
together as they had done in the past when they were still one 
body. 19 

This development, so unusual among separating church 
groups, was of far-reaching significance. With the passing of time 
there came the opportunity for the remaining Nicholites to 
examine the effect which this union with the Society of Friends 
had made upon their former brethren. They discovered that it 
had not produced the "pernicious" consequences that had been 
feared. Those who had become Quakers "continued to be dis- 
tinguished by their former plainness, simplicity, self-denial, and 
upright walking among men." 20 This opened the way for still 
others of the remaining Nicholites to seek entrance into the 
Society of Friends. 

Within a short time following the acceptance of this great 
number of Nicholites as members, Third Haven Monthly Meeting 
received word on the 17th of the 5th month, 1798, that "From 
Marshee Creek they inform us that the friends belonging to 
Centre and Northwest Fork Meetings (Two Meetings of the 
people called Nicholites, the members of whom being now nearly 
all united with friends), request that Meetings for Worship may 
be established at each of those places and also preparative Meet- 
ings established." This request was taken to the Quarterly 
Meeting and four months later the concurrence of the Quarterly 
Meeting was obtained. A short time later it was felt that a sepa- 
rate Monthly Meeting would best serve the interests of the 
Quakers in the central and southern sections of Caroline County; 
therefore, Northwest Fork Monthly Meeting came into existence 
on the 16th of the 7th month, 1800, and contained the three 
Weekly or Preparative Meetings of Northwest Fork, Centre, and 
Marshy Creek. 21 

As time progressed and the Nicholite Society grew increas- 
ingly smaller, the Nicholites decided to ask Northwest Fork 
Monthly Meeting of Friends to appoint trustees who would accept 
the titles to the two meeting houses at Centre and Northwest 
Fork. Northwest Fork meeting house, near Federalsburg, was 

— 65 — 

transferred to the Quakers in 8th month, 1799. The meeting 
house at Centre, however, was not made over until the end of 
1803, when Elijah Cromean (Cromeen), Clerk of the Nicholite 
Society, recorded on the 31st of the 12th month, 1803, that Centre 
meeting house had been transferred to the Society of Friends. 22 
Either no agreement was worked out about the meeting house at 
Tuckahoe Neck, near Denton, or else it was destroyed; the 
Quakers built a meeting house there in 1802, after meeting in the 
house of James Wilson (a former Nicholite) starting in 1798. 
This meeting house still stands today on the northern side of 
the highway on the western approach to Denton. 

How long a separate Nicholite Society continued to exist is 
uncertain. Seth Hill Evitts, the Nicholite Clerk at the time of 
the earliest application, was accepted into membership by North- 
west Fork Monthly Meeting on the 11th of the 11th month, 1801. 
Beauchamp Stanton and Elijah Cromean both applied for mem- 
bership in 11th month, 1804, and were received into membership 
in 1805. In 1806 Elisha Dawson (son of William Dawson), a 
former Nicholite who became a well-known Quaker minister and 
who traveled widely in his work — going to Ohio, Indiana, New 
England, and even making one trip to Europe — decided to visit 
"divers of the remaining part of the society called Nicholites." 
On this religious visit he was accompanied by Hatfield Wright, 
William Gray, Edward Barton, and Dennis Kelley, all of whom 
had been Nicholites before becoming Quakers. Elisha Dawson 
is the source for much of the material appearing in early nine- 
teenth century accounts of the Nicholites. Elizabeth Twiford, 
who became a widely respected minister among Friends and who 
traveled among Friends of Baltimore, Ohio, and Indiana Yearly 
Meetings, and her husband, Jonathan Twiford, did not become 
Friends until the 10th of the 2nd month, 1819. 23 

It appears probable that a small number of Nicholites never 
actually joined the Society of Friends although the two groups 
met regularly together for worship. Many years ago Wilson 
Tylor wrote that he remembered very well a "quaint old 
bachelor" named Elisha Wilson who attended Tuckahoe Neck 
meeting house near Denton but never wanted to be a member 

- 66 — 

of the Society of Friends. This man, whom Wilson Tylor reports 
to have been called the last living representative of the Nicho- 
lites, died during the Civil War. 24 

The Nicholites had only a brief existence. The "New 
Quakers" became Quakers, so that few traces of the old move- 
ment remain. Knowledge of the Nicholite Society has become 
such a fading tradition in the areas where the Society once waxed 
strong, that many who were born and have grown up in these 
localities have never heard of this unusual sect which once 
flourished on the Delmarva Peninsula and which gave birth to 
the two smaller bodies in North and South Carolina. 


1 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 262. 

2 — See Thomas E. Drake, Quakers and Slavery in America (New 

Haven, 1950), pp. 81-84; Kenneth L. Carroll, "Maryland Quakers and 
Slavery," Maryland Historical Magazine, XLV (1950), 215-225, and "Re- 
ligious Influences on the Manumission of Slaves in Caroline, Dorchester, 
and Talbot Counties," Maryland Historical Magazine, LVI (1961), 176-186. 

3 — Third Haven Minutes, III, 189, 264. 

4 — Ibid., Ill, 74, 105, 287. 

5 — Caroline County Willis, Liber JR#B, Folios 3-7, 41-43, 77-79, 
167-168, 208-209, 211-212, 229-231, 239-240, 245-248, 271-274, 288-292, 341-343, 
351-353, 359-361, 429-432. These wills often called for certain Nicholites to 
serve as trustees of the estate or to provide valuations of the estate. The 
two names appearing most often for these functions or as witnesses are 
those of James Harris and Seth Hill Evitts. See also Calendar of Kent 
County Delaware Probate Records 1680-1800 (Dover, 1944), pp. 267, 294, 
322, 350, 376, 441, 508. 

6 — Memorials, p. 85. 

7 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 250. 

8 — Memorials, p. 86; Friends' Miscellany, IV, 252; Janney, op. cit., 
Ill, 497. 

9 — Isaac Martin, A Journal of the Life, Travels, Labours and Re- 
ligious Exercises of Isaac Martin, Late of Rahway, in East Jersey, De- 
ceased (Philadelphia, 1834), pp. 54-55. 

10 — Martha Routh, Memoir of the Life, Travels, and Religious Ex- 
periences of Martha Routh, Written by Herself, or Compiled from Her Own 
Narrative (New York, 1832), p. 174. 

11 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 252; Janney, op. cit., Ill, 497; Michener, 
op. cit., p. 422. 

— 67 — 

12 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 255. 

13 — Ibid., IV, 256. 

14 — Michener, op. cit., p. 423. 

15 — Third Haven Minutes, III, 368. 

16 — Ibid., IV, 1-2. 

17 — Ibid., IV, 4: Minutes of Southern Quarterly Meeting for Men, 
I (1759-1822), 294, record the following appointees to this committee: Daniel 
Cowgill, Warner Mifflin, Robert Holliday, James Maslin, Samuel Howell, 
Isaiah Rowland, Thomas Berry, Clayton Cowgill, and John Herons. Minutes 
of Southern Quarterly Meeting for Women, I (1756-1816), 127, add the fol- 
lowing names: Jane Offley, Anne Mifflin, Ann Rasin, Mary Cowgill, Sarah 
Mifflin, Ruth Rowland, Susanna Kunn, Cassandra Corse, and Sarah Cow- 
gill. Both of these volumes are in the Friends Historical Library, Swarth- 
more College, Swarlhmore, Pennsylvania. 

18 — Bliss Forbush, Elias Hicks, Quaker Liberal (New York, 1956), 
p. 101, cites this letter. 

19 — Friends' Miscellany, IV, 253-254; Janney, op. cit., Ill, 498; 
Minutes of Southern Quarterly Meeting for Men. I, 302, record that "that 
the greater part being very remote from any of our Meetings, it became 
the concern of this Committee united with the Monthly Meeting to attend 
to their Situation in that respect, it was herefore thought right to indulge 
them in holding Meetings for worship at their three Meetinghouses that 
had belonged to that Society of People, after obtaining full liberty from 
such of them as had not applied, which meetings have been held at two 
of said Houses every since, twice in the week." 

20 — Janney, op. cit., Ill, 498; Friends' Miscellany, IV, 254. 

21 — Third Haven Minutes, IV, 11-12, 16; Northwest Fork Minutes, I, 1. 

22 — The transfer of these two meeting houses to the Society of 
Friends is recorded in the volume which contains the Nicholite birth 

23 — Northwest Fork Minutes, I, 75, 82, 93, 96, 243. 

24 — Ernest Neall Wright, Peter Wright and Mary Anderson: A Fam- 
ily Record (Ann Arbor, 1939), p. 127. This book contains a brief article 
on the Nicholites by Wilson Tylor. 



Part I : Nicholite Birth Records 

Part II : Nicholite Marriages 

Part III : Witnesses to Nicholite 

Part IV: Nicholites Admitted into 
the Society of Friends 

Part V: Nicholite Wills 



— 71 




Addams, Esther 
Anderson, Daniel 
Anderson, Elic 
Anderson, Elijah 
Anderson, James 
Anderson, Isaac 
Anderson, Major 
Anderson, Mary 
Barton, Andrew 
Barton, Ann 
Barton, Anna 
Barton, Elizabeth 
Barton, James 
Barton, Jane 
Barton, John 
Barton, Levin 
Barton, Lydia 
Barton, Peter 
Barton, Rhoda 
Barton, Sarah 
Barton, Thomas 
Barton, William 
Batchelder, Liddy 
Batchelder, William 
Batchelor, John 
Berry, Adar 
Berry, Delilah 
Berry, Littleton 
Bishop, Aaron 
Bishop, Ariminta 
Bishop, Eleanor 
Bishop, Frances 
Bishop, James 
Bishop, James 
Bishop, John 
Bishop, John 
Bishop, Levin 
Bishop, Lydia 
Bishop, Mary 
Bishop, Mary 
Bishop, Nathan 
Bishop, Rachel 
Bishop, Robert 
Bishop, Sarah 
Bishop, William 
Bishop, William 
Carner, Aron 
Charles, Caleb 
Charles, Daniel 
Charles, Elijah 
Charles, Eufama 


Daniel and Sarah 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
James and Ann 
Edward and Ann 
William and Elizabeth 
Edward and Ann 
James and Mary Ann 
William and Elizabeth 
James and Mary Ann 
James and Mary Ann 
Edward and Ann 
Edward and Ann 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
James and Mary Ann 
James and Mary Ann 
James and Mary Ann 
John and Eleanor 
William and Naomi 
John and Elenor 
William and Naomi 
William and Naomi 
William and Naomi 
Robert and Elendor 
Robert and Elenor 
William and Sarah 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Elendor 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Elendor 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Eleanor 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Eleanor 
William and Sarah 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Elenor 
William and Sarah 
William and Sarah 
Robert and Elenor 
William and Sarah 
Joshua and Marget 
Isaac and Saphier 
Isaac and Ann 
Jacob and Eufama 
Jacob and Eufama 

Date of Birth 

8/- 71766 













— 72 — 


Charles, Henry 
Charles, Isaac 
Charles, Isaac 
Charles, Jacob 
Charles, Jacob 
Charles, Jacob 
Charles, John 
Charles, Levin 
Charles, Lovey 
Charles, Nuton 
Charles, Ruben 
Charles, Sarah 
Charles, Solomon 
Charles, William 
Charles, Willis 
Ohilcuit, Celia 
Chilcut, Cloe 
Chilcut, Esther 
Chilcut, Mary 
Chilcut, Rhoda 
Chilcubt, Anna 
Chilcutt, John 
Chilcutt, Peter 
Chilcutt, Phebe 
Covey, Ann 
Covey, Rachel 
Covey, Rebeca 
Covey, Sarah 
Cromean, Andrew 
Cromean, Beachamp 
Cromean, Blades 
Cromean, Dorcas 
Cromean, Rhoda 
Cromean, Tristram 
Cromeen, Elijah 
Cromeen, James 
Cromeen, Joseph 
Cromeen, Levin 
Cromeen, Lovey 
Cromeen, Thomas 
Dawson, Daniel 
Dawson, Deborah 
Dawson, William 
Eccles, Anna 
Eccles, Anthony 
Eccles, Elic 
Eccles, Esther 
Eccles, John 
Eccles, Julana 
Eccles, Lydda 
Eccles, Mary 
Eccles, Richard 
Eccles, Sarah 
Evitts, Ann 
Evitts, Sarah 


Jacob and Euphama 
Isaac and Ann 
William and Leah 
Isaac and Ann 
Jacob and Eufama 
William and Leah 
Solomon and Sarah 
Solomon and Sarah 
Solomon and Sarah 
Solomon and Sarah 
William and Leah 
Jacob and Eufama 
Solomon and Sarah 
Isaac and Sophia 
Jacob and Euphama 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Joshua and Esther 
Noble and Rachel 
Noble and Rachel 
Noble and Rachel 
Noble and Rachel 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elijah and Sarah 
Elisha and Lydia 
Elisha and Lydia 
Elisha and Lydia 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Seth Hill and Naomi 
Seth Hill and Naomi 

Date of Birth 












































— 73 



Date of Birth 

Fisher, Alexander 
Fisher, Allifare 
Fisher, Daniel 
Fisher, Frances 
Fisher, George 
Fisher, John 
Fisher, Levicey 
Fisher, Robert 
Fisher, Sarah 
Foster, Anne 
Foster, Elizabeth 
Foster, Mary 
Foster, Peter 
Foster, Thomas 
Frampton, Hubird 
Frampton, Isaac 
Frampton, Levin 
Gray, Anna 
Gray, Elizabeth 
^ray, Esther 
Glray, Jacob 
Gray, Joseph 
Gray, Lovey 
Gray, Lydia 
Gray, Perry 
Gray, Sarah 
Gray, William 
Goslin, Daniel 
Goslin, Esther 
Harvey, Celia 
Harvey, John 
Harvey, Mary 
Harvey, Rhoda 
Harvey, Samuel 
Harris, Ann 
Harris, Ann 
Harris, Elizabeth 
Harris, Esther 
Harris, Isaac 
Harris, James 
Harris, Jeane 
Harris, John 
Harris, Levin 
Harris, Lydia 
Harris, Lydia 
Harris, Mary 
Harris, Peter 
Harris, Rachael 
Harris, Rhoda 
Harris, Sarah 
Harris, Sarah 
Harris, William 
Holbrook, Alice 
Holbrook, Daniel 

George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
George H. and Rachel 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Thomas and Ann 
William and Margaret 
Thomas and Ann 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
William and Elizabeth 
Ezekiel and Marget 
Ezekiel and Marget 
John and Sophia 
John and Sophia 
John and Sophia 
John and Sophia 
John and Sophia 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
William and Ann 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
James and Mary 
William and Ann 
Alexander and Sarah 
Alexander and Sarah 




























Date of Birth 

Holbrook, Frederick 
Holbrook, William 
Hubbert, Edward 
Hubbert, Margaret 
Hubbert, Nicee 
Hubbert, Peter 
Hubbert, Sarah 
Hubbert, Tilghman 
Jester, Jehu 
Jester, Joshua 
Jester, John 
Jester, Lydia 
Jester, Nathan 
Jenkins, Richard 
Jenkins, Sarah 
Jinkens, Mary 
Jinkens, Peter 
Kelley, Ann 
Kelley, Dennis 
Kelley, Elizabeth 
Kelley, Hix 
Kelley, John 
Kelley, Martin 
Kelley, Mary 
Kelley, Peter 
Kelley, William 
Kelley, William 
Leverton, Charles 
Leverton, Daniel 
Leverton, Elizabeth 
Leverton, Isaac 
Leverton, Jacob 
Leverton, Jesse 
Leverton, John 
Leverton, Lemuel 
Leverton, Rachel 
Leverton, Rhoda 
Leverton, Sarah 
Linager, Elizabeth 
Linager, James 
Linager, Isaac 
Linager, Mary 
Man, Joseph 
Mason, Lydia 
Mason, Mary 
Mason, Naomi 
Mason, Reubin 
Mason, Rhoda 
Mason, Sarah 
Morriston, Comfort 
Morriston, Elizabeth 
Morriston, George 
Morriston, John 
Morriston, Mary 

Alexander and Sarah 
Alexander and Sarah 
Jesse and Priscilla 
Jesse and Priscilla 
Jesse and Priscilla 
Jesse and Priscilla 
Jesss and Priscilla 
Jesss and Priscilla 
Ebenezer and Sarah 
Ebenezer and Sarah 
Ebenezer and Sarah 
Ebenezer and Sarah 
Ebenezer and Sarah 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
Richard and Ann 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
William and Mary 
Dennis and Ann 
Moses and Rachel 
Moses and Ann 
Moses and Rachel 
Moses and Ann 
Moses and Ann 
Moses and Ann 
Moses and Rachel 
Moses and Rachel 
Moses and Rachel 
Moses and Ann 
Moses and Rachel 
Isaac and Rosanna 
Isaac and Rosanna 

Isaac and Rosanna 
William and Elizabeth 
Abraham and Sarah 
Abraham and Sarah 
Abraham and Sarah 
Abraham and Sarah 
Abraham and Sarah 
Abraham and Sarah 
John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 























Morriston, Robinson 
Morriston, Sarah 
Morriston, Temperance 
Nicols, Isaac 
Nicols, Rachel 
Nicols, Rhoda 
Noble, Alexander 
Noble, Amelia 
Noble, Archabald 
Noble, Charles 
Noble, Daniel 
Noble, Elizabeth 
Noble, Esther 
Noble, James 
Noble, John 
Noble, Lovy 
Noble, Solomon 
Noble, Twyi'ords 
Noble, William 
Noble, William 
Poits, Isaac 
Poits, Sarah 
Poits, William 
Pool, Isaac 
Pool, John 
Pool, Levin 
Pool. Noddy 
Pool, Sarah 
Pool, William 
Russell, Ariminta 
Russell, Nathan 
Russell, Rachel 
Richardson, Elizabeth 
Richard, James 
Richardson, John 
Richardson, Joseph 
Richardson, Mary 
Richardson, Peter 
Richardson, Sarah 
Richardson, Solomon 
Richardson, Thomas 
Richardson, William 
Smith, Ann 
Smith, Caleb 
Smith, Daniel 
Smith, Joshua 
Stanton, Anna 
Stanton, James 
Stanton, Lydia 
Stanton, Mary 
Stanton, Mary 
Stanton, Peter 
Stanton, Sarah 
Stevens, Ann 
Stevens, Daniel 


John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 
John and Comfort 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Joseph and Mary 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
Joshua and Sarah 
William and Henrietta 
William and Henrietta 
William and Henrietta 
John and Anna 
John and Anna 
John and Anna 
John and Anna 
John and Anna 
John and Aney 
Elijah and Esther 
Elijah and Esther 
Elijah and Esther 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
John and Elizabeth 
Joshua and Ann 
Joshua and Ann 
Joshua and Ann 
Joshua and Ann 
Beauchamp and Deborah 
Thomas and Mary 
Beauchamp and Cloe 
Thomas and Mary 
Beauchamp and Deborah 
Beauchamp and Deborah 
Beauchamp and Deborah 
William and Mary 
Azel and Rebekah 

Date of Birth 
























































76 — 


Stevens, James 
Stevens, Jonathan 
Stevens, Mary 
Stevens, Rachael 
Stevens, Rhoda 
Stevens, Robinson 
Stevens, Sarah 
Stevens, William 
Swiggett, Adah 
Swiggett, Esther 
Swiggett, Henry 
Swiggett, John 
Swiggett, Levin 
Swiggett, Mynta 
Swiggett, Rhoda 
Swiggett, Sarah 
Swiggett, Solomon 
Sulavane, Sarah 
Sulivane, Daniel 
Sulivane, Joseph 
Sulivane, Mary 
Sulivane, Owen 
Sullivane, Isaac 
Sullivane, John 
Sullivane, Margaret 
Townsend, Celia 
Townsend, Henry 
Townsend, Sarah 
Townsend, Thomas 
Tumbleston, Henry 
Tumbleston, Mary 
Vichers, John 
Vichers, Joseph 
Vichers, Mary 
Vichers, Nathan 
Vichers, Richard 
Walker, James 
Walker, John 











Warren, Amos 
Warren, Baley 
Warren, Elizabeth 
Warren, John 
Warren, Johnson 
Warren, Lidy 
Warren, Lily 


Date of Birth 

William and Mary 


William and Mary 


William and Mary 


William and Mary 


William and Mary 


Azel and Rebekah 


William and Mary 


Azel and Rebekah 


Johnson and Mary 


Johnson and Mary 


Johnson and Mary 


Johnson and Mary 


Henry and Sarah 


Johnson and Mary 


Henry and Sarah 


Johnson and Mary 


Johnson and Mary 


Daniel and Marget 


Daniel and Margaret 


Daniel and Margaret 


Daniel and Marget 


Daniel and Margaret 


Daniel and Margaret 


Daniel and Margaret 


Daniel and Margaret 


Benjamin and Elizabeth 


Benjamin and Elizabeth 


Benjamin and Elizabeth 


Benjamin and Elizabeth 


Ebenezar and Jane 


Ebenezar and Jane 


John and Mary 


John and Mary 


John and Mary 


John and Mary 


John and Mary 


John and Ariminta 


John and Ariminta 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


Henry and Mary 


William and Marget 


William and Marget 


William and Marget 


William and Prisilla 


William and Marget 


William and Marget 


William and Marget 




Warren, Mary 
Warren, Rhoda 
Warren, William 
Wheatley, Anthony 
Wheatley, Arthur 
Wheatley, Byng 
Wheatley, Daniel 
Wheatley, Elizabeth 
Wheatley, Euphama 
Wheatley, Isaac 
Wheatley, William 
Williams, Bartholomew 
Williams, John 
Williams, La visa 
Williams, Newell 
Williams, Rachel 
Willis, Andrew 
Willis, Anne 
Willis, Elic 
Willis, Jesse 
Willis, Joshua 
Willis, Mary 
Willis, Milby 
Willis, Milley 
Willis, Rhoda 
Willis, Roger 
Willis, Shadrick 
Willis, Thomas 
Willis, William 
Wilson, Ann 
Wilson, Hannah 
Wilson, James 
Wilson, John 
Wilson, Mary 
Wilson, Rachel 
Wilson, William 
Wright, Ann 
Wright, Charles 
Wright, Daniel 
Wright, Esther 
Wright, Hatfield 
Wright, Jacob 
Wright, James 
Wright, James 
Wright, John 
Wright, Leven 
Wright, Mary 
Wright, Peter 
Wright, Rachel 
Wright, Sarah 
Wright, Sarah 
Wright, Selah 
Wright, William 
Wright, Willis 


William and Marget 
William and Margaret 
William and Marget 
Anthony and Sophia 
Anthony and Sophia 
William and Talitha 
Anthony and Sophia 
Anthony and Sophia 
Anthony and Sophia 
Anthony and Sophia 
Anthony and Sophia 
John and Sarah 
John and Sarah 
John and Sarah 
John and Sarah 
John and Sarah 
Andrew and Sarah 
Thomas and Sina 
Thomas and Sinai 
Thomas and Sina 
Thomas and Sina 
Andrew and Sarah 
Thomas and Sina 
Thomas and Sinai 
Andrew and Sarah 
Andrew and Sarah 
Andrew and Sarah 
Thomas and Sina 
Thomas and Sina 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
William and Hannah 
Lemuel and Elizabeth 
Willis and Sarah 
Lemuel and Elizabeth 
Willis and Esther 
Roger and Mary 
Lemuel and Elizabeth 
Roger and Mary 
John and Esther 
William and Sarah 
Roger and Mary 
Roger and Mary 
John and Esther 
Lemuel and Elizabeth 
Lemuel and Elizabeth 
John and Esther 
Roger and Mary 
John and Esther 
John and Esther 

Date of Birth 


























PART li 

— 79 



1. Thomas Willis and Siny Richets, both of Dorchester, 7/10/1767. 

2. Moses Leverton and Nancy Adams, both of Dorchester, 5/29/1768. 

3. Daniel Sullavane and Marget Melvin, both of Dorchester, 1/28/1770. 

4. Elijah Russel and Esther Cranor, both of Caroline, 1/26/1775. 

5. Isaac Charles and Nancy Payne, both of Dorchester, 9/21/1766. 

6. Isaac Linager and Rosannah, of Dorchester, 4/16/1769. 

7. Ezekiel Goslin and Peggy Bartlett, both of Dorchester, 11/23/1766. 

8. Noble Covey, of Caroline, and Mary Bicham, of Kent (Delaware), 

9. Edward Beck and Arimanti Wilson, both of Kent (Maryland), 7/1/1770. 

10. Levin Wright and Mary Rumbly, both of Dorchester, 7/11/1773. 

11. Solomon Charles and Sarah Addams, both of Dorchester, 5/23/1773. 

12. William Charles and Leah Bartlet, both of Dorchester, 5/13/1770. 

13. Solomon Bartlett, of Caroline, and Mary Victor, of Dorchester, 

14. John Bachelor, of Talbot, and Eleanor Addams, of Dorchester, 

15. Thomas Stanton and Mary Carter, both of Caroline, 12/2/1776. 

16. John Dawson and Anne Harriss, both of Caroline, 1/5/1778. 

17. James Wright and Sarah Harriss, both of Caroline, 7/6/1778. 

18. Isaac Charles, of Dorchester, and Sophia Rauly, of Caroline, 1/2/1779. 

19. Richard Jenkins and Ann Kelly, both of Caroline, 1/2/1779. 

20. James Wright and Sarah Wright, both of Caroline, 3/4/1780. 

21. Johnson Swigett and Mary Breeding, both of Caroline, 3/19/1780. 

22. William Framton, of Caroline, and Marget Goslin, of Dorchester, 

23. James Barton and Mary Ann Jenkins, both of Caroline, 4/6/1782. 

24. Dennis Kelley and Sarah Jenkins, both of Caroline, 4/5/1783. 

25. William Williams and Delilah Berry, both of Caroline, 3/31/1784. 

26. John Wright and Esther Harriss, both of Caroline, 11/6/1784. 

27. James Harriss, son of William, and Celia Wright, both of Caroline, 

28. Moses Leverton and Rachel Wright, both of Caroline, 1/15/1785. 

29. Elisba Dawson and Lydia Harriss, both of Caroline, 11/5/1785. 

30. Daniel Wright and Sarah Harriss, both of Caroline, 12/3/1785. 

31. William Poits, of Sussex (Delaware), and Adah Berry, of Caroline. 

32. Wiliiss Charles, of Dorchester, and Sarah Wright, of Caroline. 

33. Edward Barton and Ann Harriss, both of Caroline, 12/2/1786. 

34. James Wright, son of Levin, and Ann Ward, both of Caroline, 2/3/1787. 

35. Beachamp Stanton and Chloe Chilcutt, both of Caroline, 11/3/1787. 

36. William Bachelor and Elizabeth Jones, both of Caroline, 8/16/1788. 

37. Solomon Wilson, Sr., and Rachel Saffard, both of Caroline, 11/13/1788. 

38. Hubert Framptom and Mary Vickars, both of Dorchester, 10/18/1788. 

39. Jacob Wright and Rhoda Harriss, both of Caroline, 12/5/1789. 

40. Thomas Cane, Sr., of Kent (Delaware), and Frances Smith, of Caro- 
line, 6/12/1790. 

41. Thomas Grey, of Dorchester, and Sarah Marine, of Caroline, 1/14/1786. 

- 80 — 

42. Hatfield WrigM, of Caroline, and Euphama Charles, of Dorchester, 

43. Jonathan Twiford, of Sussex (Delaware), and Elizabeth Murphey, of 
Dorchester, 12/2/1790. 

44. William Anderson, of Kent (Delaware), and Ann Causey, of Caroline, 

45. Richard Vickars, of Dorchester, and CeMa Chilcutt, of Caroline, 

16. Beachamp Stanton, of Caroline, and Deborah Murpha, of Dorchester, 

47. William Williss and Henney Chance, both of Caroline, 8/9/1792. 
43. Owen Sullivane and Ester Stanton, both of Caroline, 12/26/1792. 

49. Henry Charles and Mary Wright, both of Caroline, 1/17/1793.. 

50. James Wilson, of Caroline, and Sarah Charles, of Dorchester, 

51. John Harvey and Catherine Framptom, both of Caroline, 11/5/1794. 

52. John Pool and Aney Wallis, both of Dorchester, 10/30/1768. 

53. Edward Hubbert and Ann Wright, both of Caroline, 12/6/1793. 

54. Dennis Kelley and Hannah Wilson, both of Caroline, 12/18/1794. 

55. John Pritchett and Sarah Jenkins, both of Caroline, 12/2/1797. 

56. Levin Pool and Elizabeth Emmerson, both of Caroline, 1/18/1797. 

57. Hatfield Wright and Lucrecia Lowe, both of Caroline, 10/13/1796. 

58. Joshua Noble and Sarah Twifford, both of Sussex (Delaware), date 

59. John Moriston and Catharine Harvy, both of Caroline, 9/16/1798. 

60. Owen Sulavane and Elizabeth Fidamon, both of Caroline, 12/10/1800. 

61. Henry Ward and Mary Cooper, 9/1/1767 (No witnesses listed in the 
volume which contains copies of the Nicholite marriage certifiicates). 

In the above marriage records the county (and state, in the case of 
those who lived in Delaware) where each person resided is listed. Those 
counties which are not followed by the name of a state are all in Mary- 
land. In several of these certificates the name of the father of a person 
is listed — apparently to distinguish the man from someone else of the 
same name. In the others there is no mention of the parents of the 
parties involved although, in many of them, the parents signed as 




83 — 



The numbers in parentheses, after each of the following names, refer 
to the number which has been given to each marriage in Part II. 

Adams, Elijah 


Ad dams, Thomas 


Alcock, John 


Anderson, Ann 

(22, 23) 

Anderson, Celia 


Anderson, Ezekiel 


Anderson, James 

(2, 6, 7, 18, 20, 44, 55, 56, 57) 

Anderson, James II 


Anderson, Major 


Andrew, Celia 


Andrew, Elisha 


Andrew, Richard 


Anthony, Ann 


Anthony, Joseph 


Bartlett, Daniel 

(47, 54^ 

Bartlett, James 


Bartlett, Solomon 

(12, 38) 

Barton, Edward 

(24, 25, 26, 31, 34, 48, 51, 55) 

Barton, Eliza 


Barton, James 


Barton, John 

(3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 21) 

Barton, William 

(16, 21, 26, 33) 

Bachelor, Esther 


Bachelor, Nathan 


Bachelor, Nealy (Nelly?) 


Batchelder, John 

(2, 11) 

Batchelder, William 


Beach amp, Andrew 


Beachamp, Curtis 

(46, 48, 51) 

Beachamp, Sophia 


Beck, Edward 


Berry, Adah 


Berry, Delilah 


Berry, Littleton 

(15, 21) 

Berry, Naomi 

(25, 31) 

Berry, William 

(4, 8, 10, 25, 31) 

Bishop, Robert 

(4, 34) 

Boon, James 

(35, 40, 45) 

Boon, Mary 

(37, 40, 45) 

Branghon, Sophia 


Breeding, John 


Bright, Solomon 


Buchinham, Levi 

(22, 23) 

Cain, Thomas 


Cannon, Tubman 


Caldwell, James, Jr. 


Calaway, Joseph 


Carroll, John 



Causey, Robert 


Chance, Aaron 


Chance, Bachelor 


Chance, Eliza 


Chance, Esther 


Chance, Rich 


Chance, Tilghman 

(40, 47, 59) 

Charles, Elijah 

(12, 38, 42, 43, 

49, 50, 56, 57) 

Charles, Euphama 

'32, 39, 49) 

Charles, Henry 

(32, 36, 39, 42, 

43, 46, 50, 57, 58) 

Charles, Isaac 

(1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 46, 50, 53, 60) 

Charles, Jacob 

(32, 38, 42, 49, 

50, 57) 

Charles, Jacob, Jr. 

(42, 50, 57) 

Charles, Levin 


Charles, Mary 

(1, 50, 57) 

Charles, Nancy 


Charles, Sarah 

(10, 42, 43, 49) 

Charles, Solomon 


Charles, Willis 

(24, 26, 27, 33, 

42, 49, 50, 58) 

Charles, William 

(13, 14) 

Chilcutt, Celia 

(35, 37, 40) 

Chilcutt, Esther 


Chilcutt, Joshua 

<10, 35, 37, 40, 

45, 47' 

Chilcutt, Pheobe 


Chilcutt, Rhoda 

(35, 37, 40, 45, 


Chipman, Benjamin 


Chapman, Peris 


Clark, James 

(7, 14) 

Clampit, Henry 


Clay pool, James 


Collins, Nicey 


Collins, Sarah 


Connalley, Jeremiah 


Cook, Thomas 

(2, 3) 

Cooper, Risdon 


Covey, Mary 


Covey, Noble 

(4, 15, 16, 24) 

Covey, Rhoda 

(8, 13) 

Craner, Joshua 

(4, 8, 60) 

Granor, Solomon 


Cromeen (Cremeen), Elijah 

(1, 19, 35, 59) 

Davis, Solomon 


Davis, Aquila 


Dawson, Anne 

(29, 30i 

Dawson, Daniel 


Dawson, Edward 


Dawson, Elijah 

(29, 30) 

Dawson, Elisabeth 


Dawson, Elisha 

(30, 39, 56) 

Dawson, Isabel 


Dawson, John 

(29, 30, 39, 48, 


Dawson, Jonas 


Dawson, Lydia 


Dawson, Margaret 

(29, 30) 

Dawson, Phebey 



Dawson, William 

<3, 16, 19, 29) 

Dawson, William, Jr. 


Deane, Joshua 


Dobson, William 


Eccles (Acles), Richard 

(20, 24) 

Eccles, Sarah 


Edmondson, John, Jr. 


Edmondson, Mary 


Emmerson, Samuel 

156, 59) 

Emmerson, Samuel, Jr. 


Evibts, Seth Hill 

(24, 25, 26, 

29, 31, 34, 44, 51, 54, 55, 56) 

Fidamun, Hawkins 


Flower, John 


Foster, Joseph 

(4, 8, 15) 

Foster, Rebecca 

(22, 23) 

Foster, Thomas 

(4, 15) 

Foxwell, Richard 


Framptom, Anna 


Frampton, Hubert (Hubird) 

(28, 33, 36, 

43, 45, 46) 

Framptom, John 

(22, 23) 

Fr'amptom, Levi 

(32, 34, 36, 

38, 42, 46, 49, 58) 

Framptom, Richard 

(19, 22, 23) 

Framptom, Sarah 

(22, 23) 

Framptom, Thomas 


Framptom, William 


Godwin, Henry 

(39, 53) 

Goforth, Zachariah 


Goslin, Ezekiel 


Goslin(g), Peggy (Marget) 

(2, 13) 

Goslin, Waitman 


Gray, Thomas 


Grey, Levin 


Grey, Matthew 


Hall, James 


Harper, Beachamp 

(7, 12) 

Harris, Ann 

(17, 27, 31) 

Harris, Celia 

(29, 32, 42, 


Harris, Esther 

(16, 25) 

Harris, James 

(2, 3, 4, 7, 

8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 


24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 44, 52) 

Harris, James, Jr. 

(21, 26, 29, 


Harris, Lydiia 

(25, 44) 

Harris, Mary 

(10, 13) 

Harris, Peter 

(30, 39, 53> 

Harris, Rachel 

(25, 27) 

Harris, Rhoda 

(30, 34) 

Harris, Sarah 

(16, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29) 

Harris, William 

(3, 8, 9, 15 

, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20) 

Harvey, Mary 


Harvey, Samuel 


Hilford David 

(1, 6, 7) 

Hilford, Sarah 


Holdbrook, Alexander 

(3, 4, 9, 17, 

18, 21) 

Holland (Hollon), Laban 

(7, 12, 14, 


Homey, James 

(8, 9, 15, It 

'►, 52) 


Barney, Jahm 


Harney, Philip 


Harney, William 

(2, 52) 

Hubbert, Edward 


Hubbert, Margaret 


Hubbert, Peter 


Jenkins, James 


Jenkins, Henry 

(53, 55) 

Jenkins, Hessey 


Jenkins, Mary 


Jenkins, Richard 

(18, 22, 23, 26) 

Jenkins, Sarah 


Jenkins, Thomas 

(9, 19, 24, 44 > 

Johnson, Cornelius 

(21, 52) 

Johnson, Lemon 

(37, 45) 

Jones, John 


Kelly, Denis 

(19, 48 » 

Kelley, Eliza 


Kelley, Hix 


Kelley, William 

(19, 22, 23, 24. 29 1 

Kenton, Solomon 

(47, 54) 

Kimmey, James 


Leverton, Daniel 

(32, 33, 39, 42, 46, 49 > 

Leverton, Isaac 

(42, 43, 49) 

Leverton, Moses 

(1, 5, 11, 12, 25, 30. 36, 46, 53, 57, 


Leverton, Rachel 

(30, 36, 53) 

Linagaer (Linager), 


(2, 52, 53) 

Love, Ann 


Mackimmy (Mackimy), Elijah 

(9, 13) 

Man, Joseph 


Martino, John 


Miarine, Mary 


Marine, Sarah 


Marine (Marain), Zorobabel 

(2, 59) 

Mason, Abraham 

(1, 9) 

McKimmey, Esther 


McKimmey, John 


Melvin, Edmond 


Melvin, John 

(1, 6) 

Melvin, Mary 


Miner, Edward 

<14, 52) 

Morgan, William 


Moirriston, Oathren 


Morris'ton, John 

(3, 4, 9, 13, 15. 17, 21, 48, 60) 

Murphey (Murpha), 



Murphey, Deborah 


Murphy (Murpha), , 


(22, 23, 43, 46) 

Murphey, William E 


(43, 55) 

Nauler (Naula), Jos 


(26, 29, 33) 

Nicolls, Joseph 


Nicols, Isaac 


Noble, Joshua 


Noble, Mark 


Noble, Rhoda 


Noble, Tansey 


— 87 — 

Payne, David 


Pegg, Martin 

(5, 7, 20) 

Pegg, Valintine 

(1, 3) 

Perry, Mary 


Peters, William 


Poits, William 

(51, 55) 

Pool, John 

(11, 12, 22, 23, 46, 53, 57, 58) 

Pool, Isaac 


Pool, Levin 

(46, 49, 53, 57, 58) 

Pool, Sarah 


Prichett, John 

(48, 59) 

Prichett, Sarah 


Prichett, Wingate 


Pruets, Southy 


Richardson, John, Jr. 

(15, 24) 

Richardson, Mary 


Robinson, Samuel 


Roe, Mary 


Ross, Archibald 


Ross, John 


Rumbly, Elisabeth 


Russel, Elijah 

(8, 60) 

Russel, Easter 


Shanahan, Deborah 


Sharp, Isaac 


Smith, Joshua 

(3, 9, 20, 24, 44) 

Smith, Levin 


Smith, Mary 


Smith, Matthew 


Stack, Rachel 


Stack, Thomas 

(22, 23) 

Stafford, James 


Stafford, Jarvis 


Standley, Joseph 

(5, 6) 

Stanford, Richard 


Stanton, Beacham(p) 

(31, 34, 45, 48 > 

Stanton, Deborah 

(48, 51) 

Stanton, Esther 


Stanton, John 


Stanton, Sarah 

(25, 31, 35) 

Stanton, Thomas 

(1, 35, 46, 52) 

Stuard, Charles 


Stevens, James 


Stevens, Robinson 


Stevens, William 

(18, 30) 

Sulevane, Owen 

(10, 15) 

Sulivane, David 

(2, 5, 8, 13, 14) 

Sulivane, John 

(5, 41, 48, 60) 

Sulivane, Sarah 


Sullavin, Florence 

(1, 5) 

Sullivane, Levin 


Sullivane, Mary 

(32, 41) 

Swiget, Johnson 

(19, 22, 23, 24) 

Swigett, Mary 


Swigett, William 


88 — 

Swiggate, Rhoda 


Swiggins, Lydia 


Tod(d), Benjamin 


Tull, Esther 

(5, ' 


Tull, Richard 

(2, 52) 

Tumblin, Covil 


Twiford, Archibald L. 


Twilford, Solomon 


58, 59) 

Twiford, Zorobabe Smith 


Twyford, Elizabeth 


58, 59) 

Twyford, Johnathan 


57, 58, 59) 

Vickars, Celia 


Vickars, John 



Vickars, Joseph 


Vickars, Richard 


38, 39, 46, 49) 

Walker, John 


21, 31, 34) 

Ward, Daniel 


37, 50) 

Ward, Henry 


35, 37, 47) 

Ward, James 


Ward, Mary 


Warren, William 

(1, 2) 

Watkins, Thomas 

(1, 10, 11, 36) 

Webb, James 


White, Joshua 


Williams, Delila 


Williams, Eleanor 


Williams, William 



Willis, Andrew 

(9, ] 

14, 15, 19, 25) 

Willis, Ann 


Willis, Jessee 


Willis, Mary 


Willis, Milley 


Willis, Sina(i) 


23, 47) 

Willis, Thomas 

(2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19 

Willis, William 



Wilson, Ann 


Wilson, Catharine 


Wilson, Elizabeth 


Wilson, Hannah 



Wilson, James 


40, 45, 47) 

Wilson, John 



Wilson, Rachel 


Wilson, Mary 


Wilson, Rebecca 



Wilson, Sarah 


Wilson, Solomon 


40, 47, 54) 

Wilson (Willson), William 


37, 47, 54) 

Worrilaw(?), John 


Wright, Ann 



Wright, Anna 



Wright, Celia 



Wright, Daniel 


29, 31, 32, 36, 39, 41, 42, 49, 

53, 58) 

Wright, Edward 


Wright, Elisha 


Wright, Esther 


28, 29, 30, 32, 49) 


Wright, Euphama (43) 

Wright, Hatfield (26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 

49 50 58 ) 

Wright, Jacob (28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 46, 53) 

Wright, James (12, 20, 27, 30, 33, 38, 41, 53) 

Wright, John (2, 5, 11, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 48, 

55 56) 

Wright, Lemuel (1, 2, 3, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30, 39) 

Wright, Levin (1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 20, 27, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42) 

Wright, Levin, Jr. (11, 20) 

Wright, Levina (20) 

Wright Lovey (11) 

Wright, Mary (27, 32, 42, 43) 

Wright, Peter (34, 53) 

Wright, Rhoda (49) 

Wright, Roger (10, 11, 20, 26, 27, 28, 32, 42, 52) 

Wright, Sarah (17, 26, 27, 28, 30, 53) 

Wright, William (5, 7) 




— 91 



A. By Third Haven Monthly Meeting 
Name and Date Admitted 


James Harris 

Mary Harris 

Peter Harris 

Mary Stevens 

Johnson Swigget 

Mary Swigget 

John Wright 

Hesther Wright 

Williss Charles 

Sarah Charles 

Elisha Dawson 

Lydia Dawson 

Elizabeth Wright 

Mary Wright 

Jacob Wright 

Rhoda Wright 

Daniel Wright 

Sarah Wright 

Richard Foxwell 

James Wright 

Sarah Wright 

Hatfield Wright 

Lucretia Wright 

Mary Richardson 

Margaret Connely 

John Pool 

Ann Pool 

Levin Pool 

Elizabeth Pool 

Moses Leverton 

Rachel Leverton 

James Murphey 

Mary Murphey 

William Murphey 

Ruth Murphey 

Elizabeth Frampton 

Euphama Charles 

Elijah Charles 
William Frampton 
Margaret Frampton 
Elizabeth Twiford 
William Melona 
Sophia Melona 
George Hardy Fisher- 
Daniel Fisher 
Thomas Gray 
Sarah Gray 

William Poits 

Adah Poits 

Anthony Wheatley 

Sophia Wheatley 

William Gray 

Elizabeth Gray 

Jesse Hubbert 

Sarah Pool 

Sarah Poits 

Ann Gray 

Lovey Gray 

John Barton 

William Peters 

William Wilson 

James Wilson 

Rebecca Wilson 

James Wilson, Jr. 

Sarah Wilson 

Solomon Kenton 

James Boon 

Sarah Boon 


James Anderson 

Celia Anderson 

John Berry 

Ann Emmerson 

Dennis Kelly 

Hannah Kelly 

Mary Ann Barton 

Esther Chance 

Elizabeth Kenton 

Jonathan Shannahan 

Margaret Shannahan 


Ann Love 

John Wilson 

Ann Wilson 


John Dawson 

Ann Dawson 

Elijah Russel 

Esther Russel 

Sarah Swiggett 

Richard Vichers 

Celia Vichers 

Catharine Harvey 

Henry Charles 

Mary Charles 

— 92 

Name and Date Admitted 

Elijah Bartlett 

Esther Bartlett 

Celia Bartlett 

Sarah Vichers 

Jesse Leverton 

Clement Melona 

William Melona, Jr. 

Comfort Melona 

Elizabeth Melona 

Joshua Crainer 

Perry Gray 

Joseph Gray 

Esther Gray 

William Wheatley 

Bing Wheatley 

Elizabeth Wheatley 

Euphamy Wheatley 

William Wilson, Jr. 

Rachel Wilson 


Solomon Lenton, Jr. 


Archabald Ross 

Elizabeth Ross 

Joseph Anthuny 

Ann Anthony 

Esther Chilcutt 

Mary Perry 


Jacob Wilson 

Nathan Wilson 

John Pool 

Daniel Pool 

William Pool 


Jacob Leverton 

Daniel Wheatley 

Arthur Wheatley 

Anthony Wheatley 

Isaac Wheatley 


Eli Anderson 

Joseph Man 

Elizabeth Gray 

William Gray 

Lydia Gray 

Sarah Gray 


Jacob Charles 

Lydia Barton 

Andrew Barton 

Levin Barton 

Anna Barton 

Elizabeth Barton 

Nathan Harris 

William Harris 

James Barton 

Peter Barton 

Rhoda Barton 

William Barton 

James Barton 

Elizabeth Barton 

Celia Wright 

Ann Wright 

Harris Wright 

Samuel Wright 

Lydia Wright 

Nathan Wright 

Levisa Wright 

Millah Wright 

Elisha Wright 

Aaron Wright 

Sarah Wright 

Ann Melony 

James Melony 

Tilghman Melony 

Priscilla Melony 

Mary Melony 

Joshua Vickers 

William Vickers 

John Vickers 

Sarah Leverton 

John Leverton 

Samuel Leverton 

Charles Leverton 

Elizabeth Leverton 

Rebecca Leverton 

Mary Leverton 


Tilghman Wright 

Roger Wright 

Celia Wright 

Isaac Frampton 

John Melona 

Eleanor Melona 

Rachel Fisher 

Sarah Fisher 

George Fisher 

Alexander Fisher 

John Swiggett 

Henry Swiggett 

Sarah Swiggett 

Esther Swiggett 

93 — 

Name and Date Admitted 

Mynter Swiggett 

Solomon Swiggett 

Adar Swiggett 

James Wright 

William Wright 

Peter Wright 

Willis Wright 

Rhoda Wright 

Mary Wright 

Daniel Dawson 

Deborah Dawson 

William Dawson 

Mary Kelley 

William Kelley 

Anna Kelley 

Hicks Kelley 

William Ross 

Noah Ross 
Mary Anderson 
Lydia Anderson 
Wright Anderson 
Jesse Hubbard 
John Hubbard 
Wright Charles 
Esther Charles 
Lydia Dawson 

Sarah Barton 
Ann Barton 


William Poits 

Isaac Poits 


Deborah Shannahan 

Elizabeth Shannahan 


Isaac Pool 

Rhoda Pool 

Sarah Poits 

Mary Ross 

Elizabeth Man 

William Berry 

Naomi Berry 

John Pritchett 

Sarah Pritchett 


James Ward 


Mary Berry 

Elizabeth Wilson 

Rebeccah Wilson 

Mary Wilson 

Lucretia Ward 

B. By Northwest Fork Monthly Meeting 

William Williams 
Delilah Williams 
Celia Williams 
John Vickars 
Pheba Vickars 
Southy Pruitt 
Thomas Tilor 


James Wright 

Ann Wright 


Edward Hubbert 


John Vickars 


Daniel Wright 


William James Wright 

Elizabeth Gray 


Hubert Frampton 

Johsua Williams 

Adams Foxwell 
George Foxwell 


Seth Hill Evitts 


Margaret Emmerson 


Elijah Cromean 


Beachump Stanton 


Sarah Stanton 

Peter Stanton 

Mary Stanton 

Anna Stanton 

James Stanton 
Elizabeth Stanton 
Thomas Stanton 

Amilla Chance 

Elender Kelley 

Perry Kelley 

— 94 

Name and Date Admitted 

William Williams Jonah Kelley 

Mary Williams Mary Kelley 

Sarah Williams Elender Kelley 

Adah Williams 2/10/1819 

7/15/1801 ^Elizabeth Twiford 

Ann Foxwell Jonathan Twiford 
Daniel Foxwell 

*Elizabeth Twiford first applied for membership in 1797 and was received 

on 1/11/1798. Shortly thereafter she asked to be released from Friends' 

membership. It was not until 1819 that she, accompanied this time by 
her husband, asked for membership once more. 






A. Caroline County 
WILLIAM HARRIS 12th of 3rd month, 1784 

June 15, 1784 
Wife: Ann; sons: James (eldest), William, Isaac, John, Levin; daughters: 
Mary, Elizabeth, Rachel, Lydia, and Jane. Witnesses: James Harris, 
Joshua Smith, and Joshua Oranor. JR#B, pp. 3-7. 
LEVIN WRIGHT 12th of 10th month, 1785 

October 21, 1785 
Wife: Mary; sons: James, Peter, Levin, and Charles; daughter: Ann 
(wife of Shadrach Willis). Witnesses: James Harris, Daniel Wright, 
and Lemuel Wright. JR#B, pp. 41-43. 

WILLIAM KELLEY November 22, 1785 

March 1, 1787 
Wife: Mary; sons: William, John, Hicks, Peter, Martin, and Dennis; 
daughters: Ann Jenkins, Mary, Elizabeth, and Leah. Witnesses: Andrew 
Beachamp, William Gray, and Stephen Fleharty. JR#B, pp. 77-79. 

WILLIAM STEVENS 19th of 5th month, 1790 

September 20, 1790 
Wife: Mary; sons: Jonathan (elder), and James; daughters: Sarah, Mary, 
Rhoda, and Rachel. Four friends 'to value estate: Seth Hill Evitts, Jesse 
Hubbert, Edward Barton, and James Harris. Witnesses: Edward Barton, 
Jesse Hubbert, and Seth Hill Evitts. JR#B, pp. 167-168. 

THOMAS WILLIS 22nd of 8th month, 1792 

November 27, 1792 
Wife: Sinai; sons: Milbey, Jesse, Joshua, Thomas, and Elic; daughter: 
Milley. Witnesses: James Harris, Seth Hill Evitts, and Thomas Stanton. 
JR#B, pp. 208-209. 

ROGER WRIGHT 15 bh of 7th month, 17S2 

December 19, 1792 
Sons: James, Hatfield, and Levin (a Quaker); daughter: Mary. Trustees: 
Moses Leverton and Lemuel Wright. Witnesses: Daniel Leverton, Robert 
Hall, and James Murphey. JR#B, pp. 211-212. 

THOMAS STANTON 14th of 11th month, 1793 

December 3, 1793 
Sons: Beacham, James, and John; daughters: Dorothy Blades and Mary 
Stanton; granddaughter: Elizabeth Blades. Trustees: Henry Ward and 
James Harris. Witnesses: John Moirrtiston, Jr.. and John Harvey, Sr. 
JR#B, pp. 22S-231. 
JOSHUA CHILCUTT 22nd of 12 month, 1792 

June 3, 1794 
Wife: Esther; sons: Peter and John; daughters; Rhoda, Esther, Febe, 
Anne, Mary Boon, and Celia Vickers. Witnesses: William Warren, Thomas 
Williams, Daniel Leverton. JR#B, pp. 239-240. 
NEHEMIAH SAULSBURY 4th of 9th month, 1794 

September 30, 1794 
Wife: Deborah; sons: Charles, Noah, and Wilson. Executor: Seth Hill 
Evitts. Witnesses: Lydia Wilson, Prudence Willoughby, and Daniel 
Saulsbury. JR#B, pp. 245-246. 

_ 98 — 

JAMES HORNEY 14th of 8th month, 1794 

December 11, 1794 
Relatives (all children of Jeffry Harney): William, John, and Philip, 
Harney, Elizabeth Anderson, Deborah Stanley, Lydia Sauls bury, and Ann 
Dial. Friend: James Harris. Executors': James Harris and Seth Hill 
Evitts. Witnesses: Charles Jones, Solomon Hobbs, and Comfort Hobbs. 
JR#B, pp. 252-254. 
HENRY WARD 15th of 10th month, 1794 

April 7, 1795 
Wife: Mary; sons: Daniel, Henry, Richard, and James; daughters: Ann 
Wright, Mary, Lydia, and Rachel. Witnesses: James Harris, James 
Wilson, and William Wilson. JR#B, pp. 271-274. 
JONATHAN WILSON 4th of 2nd month, 1795 

September 22, 1795 
Wife: Lydia; sons: Jonathan, John, Joshua, Daniel, Peter, 'and William; 
daughters: Levina and Rebecca; grandsons (sons of Jonathan): William 
and John, Witnesses: Seth Hill Evibbs, William Mobray, James Smith, and 
Mary Waddel. JR#B, pp. 288-292. 
WILLIAM DAWSON 27th of 5th month, 1795 

December 7, 1795 
Wife: Isabele; sons: John, Elijah, Elisha, Shadrach, William Frederick, 
Joseph, and Jonas; daughters: Elizabeth, Margaret; granddaughter: 
Isabel (d. of Shadrach); grandson: William (of Joseph). Witnesses: 
James Harris, Owen Sulivane, and William Poits, JR#B pp. 301-304. 
SOLOMON WILSON 31st of 3rd month, 1793 

May 10, 1795 
Wife: Rachel; sons: Solomon, Elisha, and George; daughters: Rebeckah 
and Mary; brother: James. Witnesses: James Harris, Solomon Kenton, 
and James Wilson, Jr. JR#B, pp. 341-342. 
LEMUEL WRIGHT Oth of 12th month, 1794 

September 27, 1798 
Wife: Elizabeth; sons: Daniel and Jacob; daughters: Sarah, Rachel 
Leverton, Ann Hubbert, and Mary Wright. Trustees: William Peters, 
Seth Hill Evitts, James Harris, and Levin Wright Oof Roger). Witnesses: 
John Wright, Elisha Dawson, and John Pool. JR#B, pp. 351-353. 
JOHN HARVEY 17th of 4th month, 1795 

April 25, 1795 
Wife: Caithrane; sons: Samuel and Beacham; daughter Sophia. Wit- 
nesses: William Andrew and Andrew Beachamp. JR#B, pp. 359-361. 
HENRY SWIGGETT 23rd of 9th month, 1798 

November 27th, 1798 
Wife: Sarah; sons: William, Johnson, Harmon, Henry, Levin, Daniel, 
and James; daughters: Rhoda Swiggebt and Sarah Coldseabt. Trustees: 
Peter Harris, Willis Charles, James Anderson, and Edward Barton. Wit- 
nesses: James Harris, William Jones, and Hannah Jones. JR#B, pp. 429- 
JAMES HARRIS 2nd of 8th month, 1799 

October 15, 1799 
Wife: Mary; son: Peter; daughters: Anne Dawson, Lydia Dawson, Esther 
Wright, Sarah Wright, Rhoda Wright. Witnesses: Seth Hill Evitts, William 
Peters, 'and Edward Barton. JR#B, pp. 459-460. 
B. Kent County, Delaware 
JOSEPH NICOLLS (Nichols) January 23, 1770 

December 31, 1770 

— 99 — 

Wife: Mary; children: unnamed. Witnesses: Covil Tumlin, James Ander- 
son, David Hillford. p. 255. 
BENJAMIN CHIPMAN April 19, 1772 

June 23, 1772 
Wife: Mary; daughter: Susanna; sons: Stephen and Benjamin. Witnesses: 
Patrick Crain, Peres Chapman, and Reuben Sheild. p. 2S7. 
DAVID HILLFORD (Yeoman) Dec. 1774 

Administration papers to widow: Sarah, p. 294. 
ZACHARIAH GOFORTH (Yeoman) August 9, 1764 

August 29, 1779 
Wife: Sarah; nephew: Peter Goforth (son of brother Thomas). Executors: 
Sarah Goforth and Jonathan Emerson. Witnesses: Alexander Whiteley, 
Uriah Sipple, Mary Jenkins, p. 322. 
RICHARD ECKELS (Eccles) April 20, 1783 

May 14, 1783 
Wife: Ann; sons: John, Anthoney, Richard, and Jesse; daughters; Esther, 
Julana, Lydia, Hannah, Sarah Jester and Mary Jester. Witnesses: Frances 
Jester, Major Anderson, Phillis Jester, p. 350. 
SARAH GOFORTH June 7, 1785 

December 16, 1785 
Heirs: Peter Goforth, son of Thomas; Sarah, Zachariah and Jonathan 
Murphey, children of Charles Murphey; Mary Murphey, wife of Charles 
Elizabeth Sheridine; Zachariah and Sarah Goforth, children of George 
William Redin and Charles Redin; Thomas, William, and Rachel Glanding 
Nancy Ricketts, wife of Thomas; Charles Murphey. Witnesses: William 
Richardson, Samuel Clampett, and Tabithy Wilson, p. 376. 
JAMES ANDERSON February 9, 1791 

March 7, 1791 
Wife: Ann; sons: John, James, Isaac, Daniel, Elijah, Major, and Eli: 
daughter: Ann Callay. Witnesses: Abraham Kimme, Unisey Cain, and 
Ezekiel Anderson, p. 441. 

ANN ECKELS (widow of Richard) April 18, 1795 

Administration papers to Anthony Eckels (Eccles). Heirs: Jesse, Julana, 
Lydia, John, Richard, and Anthony Eckles, Sarah Jester, Mary Jester, 
Army Taylor, and Esther Taylor, p. 508. 
RICHARD ECKLES March 17, 1796 

April 18, 1796 
Sister: Li da; brother: Jessy Eckles; other brothers and sisters unnamed. 
Executor: John Eckles. Witnesses: Zachariah Pritchebt, Roger Scully, 
and Ezekiel Anderson, p. 506. 

The above probate records (wills and administration accounts) are taken 
from Calendar of Kent County, Delaware, Probate Records, 1680-1800 
(Dover, 1944). 



— 101 — 



A. Manuscripts 

Birth Records of the Nicholites. One volume. With the records of Third 

Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends, on deposit at the Hall of Records, 

Annapolis, Maryland. 
Deeds of Dorchester County, Maryland. Liber Old 22. Found in the office 

of the Clerk of the Court, Dorchester County Court House, Cambridge, 

Deeds of Kent County, Delaware. Liber R. Found in the Kent County 

Court House, Dover, Delaware. 
Marriage Records of the Nicholites. One volume. Located with the 

records of Third Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends, on deposit at 

the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. 
Minutes of Northwest Fork Monthly Meeting of Friends. With the records 

of Third Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends, on deposit at the Hall of 

Records, Annapolis, Maryland. 
Minutes of Southern Quarterly Meeting for Men. On deposit at Friends 

Historical Library, Swarthmore College Library, Swarthmore, Penn- 
sylvania. Volume I (1759-1822). 
Minutes of Southern Quarterly Meeting for Women. On deposit at Friends 

Historical Library, Swarthmore College Library, Swarthmore, Penn- 
sylvania. Volume I (1756-1816). 
Minutes of Third Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends. On deposit at the 

Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. Volumes III (1747-1797) and IV 

Nicholite Petition to the General Assembly of North Carolina. Located 

at the State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, North 

Nicholite Queries. Found in a letter from Anthony Whitely to Benjamin 

Ferris, now found in the Ferris Collection, Friends Historical Library, 

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. 
Wills of Caroline County, Maryland. Liber JR#B. On deposit at the Hall 

of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. 
Wills of Kent County, Delaware. Liber L. Found in the Kent County 

Court House, Dover, Delaware. 

B. Books 

Asbury, Francis. Edited by Elmer T. Clark, J. Manning Potts, and Jacob 
S. Payton. The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury . Nashville, 
1958. Volume I. 

Bangs, Nathan. The Life of the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson: Compiled from 
His Printed and Manuscript Journals, and Other Authentic Documents. 
New York, 1838. 

Calendar of Kent County, Delaware, Probate Records, 1680-1800. Compiled 
by Leon deVallnger, Jr. Dover, 1944. 

Comly, John and Comly, Isaac (ed.). Friends Miscellany: Being a Col- 
lection of Essays and Fragments, Biographical, Religious, Epistolary, 
Narrative, and Historical; etc. Philadelphia, 1833. Volume IV. 

Fries, Adelaide L. (ed.) Records of the Moravians in North Carolina. 
Raleigh, 1926. Volume III. 

Grellet, Stephen. Edited by Benjamin Seebohn. Memoirs of the Life and 
Gospel Labours of Stephen Grellet. Philadelphia, 1860. 

— 102 — 

Hicks, Elias. Journal of the Life and Religious Labours of Elias Hicks, 

New York, 1832. 
Hinshaw, William W. Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Ann 

Arbor, 1936-1950. Volume I. 
Jordan, Richard. A Journal of the Life and Religious Labours of Richard 

Jordan, a Minister of the Gospel in the Society of Friends, Late of 

Newton, in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Philadelphia, 1829. 
Laws of Maryland Made Since M, DCC, LXIII, Consisting of Acts of Assem- 
bly Under the Proprietary Government, Etc. Annapolis, 1787. 
Martin, Isaac. A Journal of the Life, Travels, Labours, and Religious 

Exercises of Isaac Martin, Late of Rahway, in East Jersey, Deceased. 

Philadelphia, 1834. 
Memorials Concerning Deceased Friends: Being a Selection from the 

Records of the Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania, Etc., from the Year 

1788 to 1878 Inclusive. Philadelphia, 1879. 
Routh, Martha. Memoir of the Life, Travels, and Religious Experiences 

of Martha Routh, Written by Herself or Compiled from Her Own 

Narrative. New York. 1832. 
Woolman, John. Edited by Amelia Molt Gummere. The Journal and 

Essays of John Woolman. Philadelphia, 1922. 
C. Articles 

Mifflin, Beniamin. "A Journal of a Journey from Philada. [sic] to the 
Cedar Swamps and Back. 1764." Pennsylvania Magazine of History 
and Biography. LII (1928), 130-140. Cop. 131-132 contain the earliest 
contemporary reference to Joseph Nichols — 1764. Mifflin tells of a 
crowd going to hear Joseph Nichols who was to have a public dis- 
putation with Parson Ingles of Dover, Delaware: Mifflin also gives 
a virogous and violent criticism of Joseph Nichols.] 


A. Books 

Anscombe, Francis Charles. I Have Called You Friends: The Story of 
Quakerism in Nor'h Carolina. Boston, 1959. 

Bowmen, Thp History of the Society of Friends in America. London, 1854. 
Volume II. 

Drake. Thomas E. Quakers and Slavery in America. New Haven, 1950. 

Forbush, Bliss. Elias Ficks, Quaker Liberal. New York, 1956. 

Janney, Samuel M. History of the Religious Socie*v of Friends, from 
Its Rise to the Year 1828. Philadelphia, 1833. Volume III. 

Jones, Elias. Revised History of Dorchester County, Maryland. Balti- 
more, 1925. [pp. 415-425 contain an account of the Man'ne family.] 

Michener, Ezra. A Re*rostiect of Early Quakerism: Being Extracts from 
the Records of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and the Meetings Com- 
posing It, to Wh'di Is Prefixed an Account of Their First Establish- 
ment. Philadelphia, 18 c 0. 

Rhodes. Nelson Osgood fed.). Colonial Families of the United States. 
Baltimore, 1920. Volume VII. [pp. 349-356 contain a chapter on the 
Marine family.] 

Waterston, Elizabeth. Churches in Delaware During the Revolution, With 
a Brief Account of Their Settlement and Growth. Wilmington, 1925. 

Weeks, Stephen B. Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional 
History. Baltimore, 1896. 

Wright, Ernest Neall. Peter Wright and Mary Anderson: A Family 
Record. Ann Arbor, 1939. 

— 103 — 

B. Articles and Essays 

Cadbury, Henry J. "Negro Membership in the Society of Friends," 

Journal of Negro History. XXI (1936), 151-213. 
Carroll, Kennth L. "Additional Nicholite Records," Maryland Historical 
Magazine. LII (1957), 74-80. 

. . "Joseph Nichols and the Nicholites of Caroline County, Mary- 
land," Maryland Historical Magazine. XLV (1950), 47-81. 

. "Joseph Nichols, of Delaware: an Eighteenth Century Reli- 
gious Leader," Delaware History. VII (1958), 37-48. 

"Maryland Quakers and Slavery," Maryland Historical Mag- 
azine. XLV (1950), 215-225. 

.__. "More about the Nicholites," Maryland Historical Magazine. 
XLVI (1951), 278-289. 

"Maryland Quakers in the Seventeenth Century," Maryland 

Historical Magazine. XLVII (1952), 297-313. 

. "Religious Influences on the Manumission of Slaves in Caro- 
line, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties," Maryland Historical Magazine. 
XLVI (1961), 176-197. 

. "Quakerism in Caroline County, Maryland: Its Rise and De- 
cline," The Bulletin oi Friends Historical Association. XLVIII (1959), 
. "Talbot County Quakerism in the Colonial Period," Mary- 
land Historical Magazine. LIII (1958), 326-370. 

. "The Influence of John Woolman on Joseph Nichols and the 

Nicholites," in Anna Brinton (ed.), Then and Now: Quaker Essays 
(Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 168-179. 

. "The Nicholites Become Quakers: An Example of Unity in 

Disunion," The Bulletin of Friends Historical Association. XLVII 
(1958), 3-19. 

. "The Nicholites of North Carolina, "The North Carolina 

Historical Review. XXXI (1954), 453-462. 
Cranor, Henry Downes. "The Taking Over of the Nicholites by the 
Friends," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. XXVII 
(1903), 76-79. 

— 104 



Daniel 26, 72 

Eleanor 80 

Elijah 84 

Esther 72 

Nancy 80 

Sarah 72, 80 

Thomas 28,84 

John 84 
American Revolution 29, 36 

Ann 21, 22, 25, 34, 72, 84, 100 

Celia 62, 81, 84, 92 

Daniel 72, 100 

Eli 93, 100 

Elic 72 

Elijah 72, 100 

Elisabeth 99 

Ezekiel 84, 100 

Isaac 72, 100 

James 21, 22, 25, 32, 34, 52, 
62, 72, 84, 92, 99, 

James, Jr. 100 

John 100 

Lydia 94 

Major 52, 72, 84, 100 

Mary 72, 94 

William 25 

Wright 94 

Celia 84 

Elisha 84 

Richard 84 

William 99 

Ann 84, 93 

Joseph 84, 93 

Francis 22, 35, 42, 43, 44, 60 

Esther 84 

Nathan 84 

Nealy 84 

William 80 

Celia 62, 92 

Daniel 84 

Elijah 92 

Esther 62, 92 

James 84 

Peggy 80 

Rebeccah 57 

Solomon 80, 84 


Andrew 72, 93 

Ann 72, 94 

Anna 72, 93 

Anne 62 

Edward 62, 66, 72, 98, 99 

Elizabeth 72, 93 

James 72, 80, 93 

Jane 72 

John 62, 72, 84, 92 

Levin 72, 93 

Lydia 72, 93 

Mary Ann 62, 72, 92 

Peter 72, 93 

Rhoda 72, 93 

Sarah 72, 94 

Thomas 72 

William 72, 84, 93 

Eleanor 72 

John 72, 84 
58, John Jr. 72 

100 Liddy 72 

Naomi 72 

William 72, 84 

William Jr. 72 

John 80 

William 34 
Bayside Meeting 56 

Andrew 84, 98, 99 

Charles 51 

Curtis 51, 84 

Elizabeth 52 

Ellick 51 

Henry 51 

John 51 

Levi 51 

Matthew 51 

Milcha 52 

Russ 51 

Sophia 84 

William 51 

William Jr. 51 

Edward 80, 84 

Adah 72, 80, 84 

Delilah 72, 80, 84 

John 92 

Littleton 72, 84 

Mary 56, 57, 94 

Naomi 72, 84, 94 

— 105 — 


Thomas 68 

William 34, 72, 84, 94 

Mary 80 

Aaron 72 

Ariminta 72 

Elenor 72 

Frances 72 

James 72 

John 72 

Levin 72 

Lydia 72 

Mary 72 

Nathan 72 

Rachel 72 

Robert 34, 72, 84 

Sarah 72 

William 72 

William, Jr. 72 

Elizabeth 98 

James 62, 84, 92 

Mary 62, 84, 98 

Sarah 92 

Sophia 28, 84 

John 84 

Mary 80 

Solomon 84 

Levi 84 

Thomas, Sr. 80, 84 

Unisey 100 

Alexander 47 

David 47 

James 47, 49 

Joseph 84 

Ann 100 
Cambridge (Md.) 28 

Tubman 84 
Capital Punishment 30 

Aaron 72 

Joshua 72 

Marget 72 

Caroline County (Md.) 19, 21, 25, 28, 
29, 33, 34, 38, 56, 57, 64, 
65, 80, 81 

John 84 

Mary 80 

Ann 81 

Robert 85 
Centre Meeting 38, 64, 65, 66 
Centre Monthly Meeting 62,63 

Elizabeth 14 

Joseph 14 

Aaron 85 

Amilla 94 

Bachelor 85 

Eliza 85 

Esther 61, 85, 92 

Henney 81 

Rich 85 

Tilghman 85 

Ann 72 

Caleb 72 

Daniel 72 

Elijah 62, 72, 85, 92 

Elisha 47 

Esther 94 

Euphama 62, 72, 81, 85, 92 

Henry 73, 81, 85, 92 

Isaac 27, 72, 80, 85 

Isaac, Jr. 73 

Isaac (of Wm.) 73 

Jacob 72, 85, 93 

Jacob, Jr. 73, 85 

Jacob (of Wm.) 73 

Jacob (of Isaac) 73, 85 

John 73 

Leah 73 

Levi 47 

Levin 32, 47, 49, 73, 85 

Lovey 73 

Mary 47, 62, 85, 92 

Michael 47 

Nuton 73 

Ruben 73 

Saphier 72 

Sarah 62, 73, 81, 85, 92 

Solomon 27, 57, 73, 80, 85 

William 47, 49, 73, 80, 85 

William (of Isaac) 73 



Willis 62, 73, 80, 85, 92, 99 

Wright 94 

Anne (Anna) 73, 98 

Celia 73, 81, 85, 98 

Chloe 73, 80 

Esther 62, 73, 85, 93, 98 

John 73, 98 

Joshua 34, 57, 73, 85, 98 

Mary 73, 98 

Peter 73, 98 

Phebe 73, 85, 98 

Rhoda 73, 85, 98 

Benjamin 32, 58, 85, 100 

Benjamin Jr. 100 

Margaret 21, 22, 25 

Mary 100 

Paris 21, 22, 25, 46, 49, 85, 100 

Stephen 100 

Susana 100 
Choptank Meeting 56 
Church of England 13, 28, 29, 35 

Henry 85 

Samuel 100 

James 85 

James 85 

Sarah 99 

Nicey 85 

Sarah 85 
Concord (Md.) 38 

Jeremiah 85 
Connecticut 13 

Margaret 62, 92 

Thomas 85 

Mary 81 

Risdon 85 

Cassandra 68 

Ann 73 

Mary 85 

Noble 34, 73, 80, 85 

Rachel 73 

Rebecca 73 

Rhoda 85 

Sarah 73 

Clayton 68 

Daniel 68 

John 37 

Mary 68 

Sarah 68 

Patrick 100 

Esther 80 

Joshua 85, 92, 98 

Solomon 85 

Andrew 73 

Beachamp 73 

Blades 73 

Dorcas 73 

Elijah 66, 73, 85, 94 

Elijah Jr. 73 

James 73 

Joseph 73 

Levin 73 

Lovey 73 

Rhoda 73 

Sarah 73 

Thomas 73 

Tristram 73 

Eleanor Marine 46 

Aquila 85 

Solomon 85 

Anne 62, 85, 99 

Daniel 73, 85, 93 

Deborah 73, 93 

Edward 85 

Elijah 99 

Elisha 62, 66, 73, 80, 85, 92, 99 

Elizabeth 85, 99 

Isabel 85, 99 

John 62, 80, 85, 92, 99 

Jonas 85, 99 

Joseph 99 

Lydia 61, 73, 85, 92, 94, 99 

Margaret 85, 99 

Phebey 85 

Shadrach 99 



William 25, 26, 28, 34, 36, 57, 66, 
86, 93, 99 

William Jr. 99 

William Frederick 99 

William (of Elisha) 73 

Joshua 86 
Deep River (N. C.) 46, 47, 50, 51, 52 
Deep River Monthly Meeting 51 
Delaware 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 25, 30, 

37, 44, 46, 47, 54, 57 
Denton (Md.) 38, 66 

Ann 99 

John 57 

William 86 
Dorchester County (Md.) 21, 25, 27, 

28, 33, 80, 81 
Dover (Delaware) 13, 103 
Duck Creek 37 
Dunkards 50 

Thomas 24, 32 
Eastern Shore of Marvland 16, 18, 

19, 29, 46, 50, 56 

Ann 34, 58, 73, 100 

Anna 73, 100 

Anthony 73, 100 

Elic 73 

Esther 73, 100 

Hannah 100 

Jesse 100 

John 73, 100 

Julana 73, 100 

Lvdia 73, 100 

Mary 73, 100 

Richard 34, 58, 73, 86, 100 

Richard Jr. 58, 73, 100 

Sarah 73, 86. 100 
Edisto Community (S. C.) 13 

John Jr. 28, 86 

Mary 28, 86 
Education 31 

Jonathan 14 

Anne 62, 92 

Elizabeth 81 

Jonathan 100 

Margaret 94 

Samuel 62, 86 

Samuel Jr. 86 
Europe 66 

Joshua 22, 40, 41, 52, 56 

Ann 73 

Naomi 73 

Sarah 73 

Seth Hill 62, 63, 66, 73, 86, 94, 
98, 99 
Federalsburg (Md.) 38, 65 

Benjamin 41 

Elizabeth 81 

Hawkins 86 

Alexander 74, 93 

Allifare 74 

Daniel 62, 74, 92 

Frances 74 

George 74, 93 

George Hardy 62, 74, 92 

John 74 

Levicey 74 

Rachel 74, 93 

Robert 74 

Sarah 74, 93 

Steohen 98 

John 28, 86 

Anna 74 

Elizabeth 74 

Joseph 74, 86 

Mary 74 

Peter 74 

Rebecca 86 

Thomas 74, 86 

Adams 94 

Ann 94 

Daniel 94 

George 94 

Richard 62, 86, 92 

Ann 74 

Catharine 81 

Elizabeth 62, 92 



Hubird (Hubert) 74, 80, 86, 98 

Isaac 74, 93 

John 86 

Levin 74 

Levi 86 

Margaret 62, 74, 92 

Richard 86 

Sarah 86 

Thomas 74, 86 

William 62, 74, 80, 86, 92 

Mr. 43 
French and Indian War 30 

Freeborn 22, 42, 43, 44, 60 
General Assembly (Md.) 37 
General Assembly (N. C.) 48, 50, 54 
Georgia 57 

Rachel 100 

Thomas 100 

William 100 


Henry 62, 86 

Preston 62 

Seth 62 

Tabitha 62 

George 100 

Peter 100 

Sarah 25, 58, 100 

Thomas 100 

Zachariah 25, 58, 86, 100 

Daniel 74 

Esther 74 

Ezekiel 74, 80, 86 

Marget 74, 80, 86 

Waitman 86 

Anna 62, 74 

Ann(e) 92 

Elizabeth 62, 74, 92, 93, 94 

Esther 74, 92 

Jacob 74 

Joseph 74, 92 

Lovey 62, 74, 92 

Lydia 74, 93 

Matthew 86 

Perry 74, 92 

Sarah 62, 74, 92, 93 

Thomas 62, 92 

William 62, 66, 74, 92, 93, 98 

William Jr. 74 

Great Awakening 14 
Greensboro Meeting 56 

Stephen 52, 56 

Levin 86 

Thomas 80, 86 
Guilford County (N. C.) 46, 47, 50, 

Gum Swamp (S. C.) 51, 52 

Robert 98 

Ann 74, 80, 86, 98, 99 

Anne 80 

Celia 86 

Elizabeth 74, 98 

Esther 74, 80, 86, 99 

Isaac 74, 98 

James 34, 35, 43, 58, 59, 61, 62, 
67, 74, 86, 92, 98, 99 

James (of Wm.) 74, 80, 86, 98 

Jane 98 

Jeane 74 

John 74, 98 

Levin 74, 98 

Lydia 74, 80, 86, 98, 99 

Mary 34, 62, 74, 86, 92, 98, 99 

Nathan 93 

Peter 62, 74, 86, 92, 99 

Rachel 74, 86, 98 

Rhoda 74, 80, 86, 99 

Sarah 74, 80, 86, 99 

William 25, 26, 34, 57, 74, 86, 
93 94 

William Jr. 74, 94 

Beacham 99 

Catharine 62, 81, 92, 99 

Celia 74 

John 57, 74, 81, 98, 99 

John Jr. 74 

Mary 74, 86 

Rhoda 74 

Samuel 74, 86, 99 

Sophia 74, 99 
Haw River (N. C.) 47 

John 68 

Elias 22, 56, 64 

David 24, 32, 58, 86, 100 

Sarah 24, 86, 100 




Comfort 99 
Solomon 99 

Alexander 74, 86 

Alice 74 

Daniel 74 

Frederick 75 

Sarah 74 

William 75 

Laban 86 

Robert 68 

Lambert 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 
22, 32 

James 26, 34, 47, 57, 86, 99 

Jeffry 99 

John 47, 49, 87, 99 

Philip 87, 99 

William 47, 49, 87, 99 

Samuel 68 

Ann 99 

Edward 75, 81, 87, 94 

Jesse 62, 75, 92, 94, 98 

John 94 

Margaret 75, 87 

Nicee 75 

Peter 75, 87 

Priscilla 62, 75 

Sarah 75 

Tilghman 75 

William 47 

Susanna 68 
Indiana 66 

Parson 103 

Ann 75, 98 

James 87 

Henry 87 

Hessey 87 

Mary 75, 87, 100 

Mary Ann 80 

Peter 75 

Richard 75, 80, 87 

Richard Jr. 75 

Sarah 62, 75, 80, 81, 87 

Thomas 87 



Ebenezer 75 

Frances 100 

Jehu 75 

John 75 

Joshua 75 

Lydia 75 

Mary 100 

Nathan 75 

Phyllis 100 

Sarah 75, 100 

Cornelius 87 

Lemon 87 

Charles 99 

Elizabeth 80 

Hannah 99 

John 87 

William 99 

Richard 56 

Ann 75, 80, 98 

Anna 93 

Dennis 62, 66, 75, 80, 81, 87, 92, 

Elender 95 

Elizabeth 75, 87, 98 

Hannah 62, 92 

Hicks 75, 87, 93, 98 

John 75, 98 

Jonah 95 

Leah 98 

Mary 75, 93, 95, 98 

Martin 75, 98 

Perry 94 

Peter 75, 98 

William 57, 75, 87, 93, 98 

William Jr. 75, 98 

William (of Dennis) 75 
Kent County (Delaware) 13, 14, 21, 
25, 32, 44, 46, 52, 58, 
64, 80 
Kent County (Md.) 64, 80 

Elizabeth 92 

Solomon 62, 87, 92, 99 

Solomon Jr. 92 

Abraham 100 

James 87 




Ann, 75 

Charles 75, 93 

Daniel 75, 87, 98 

Elizabeth 75, 93 

Isaac 75, 87 

Jacob 75, 93 

Jesse 75, 93 

John 75, 93 

Lemuel 75 

Mary 93 

Moses 28, 62, 75, 80, 87, 92, 98 

Rachel 62, 75, 87, 92, 99 

Rebecca 93 

Rhoda 75 

Samuel 93 

Sarah 75, 93 

Elizabeth 75 

Isaac 26, 27, 47, 52, 75, 80, 87 

James 75 

Mary 75 

Rosanna 26, 52, 75, 80 
Little Pee Dee (S. C.) 51, 52 

Ann(e) 62, 87, 92 

Lucretia 81 

Elijah 87 

Elizabeth 75, 94 

Joseph 75, 87, 93 

William 75 

William 24 

Charles 51 

Harriet P. 46 

Jesse 51 

John 51 

Jonathan 46, 51 

Jonathan Jr. 51 

Mary 51, 87 

Sarah 80, 87 

Zorobabel 87 
Marshy Creek Meeting 19, 21, 56, 

57, 63 

Isaac 22, 56, 59 

John 87 


James 68 

Abraham 75, 87 

Lydia 75 

Mary 75 

Naomi 75 

Reubin 75 

Rhoda 75 

Sarah 75 
Matrimony Creek (N. C.) 47 
Matthewstown (Md.) 19 

Esther 87 

John 87 

Ann 93 

Clement 92 

Comfort 92 

Eleanor 92 

Elizabeth 92 

James 93 

John 93 

Mary 93 

Priscilla 93 

Sophia 62, 92 

Tilghman 93 

William 62, 92 

William Jr. 92 

Edmond 87 

John 87 

Marget 80 

Mary 87 
Mennonists (Mennonites) 50 
Methodists 13, 14, 22, 42, 43, 60 

Ezra 60 

Anne 68 

Sarah 68 

Warner 68 

Edward 87 
Mispillion Hundred (Delaware) 14, 

27, 44 
Moravians 50 

William 87 

Cathren 87 

Comfort 75 

Elizabeth 75 

— Ill 


George 75 

John 75, 81, 87 

Jonn Jr. 75, 98 

Mary 75 

Robinson 76 

Sarah 76 

Temperance 76 
Motherkill Meeting 19 

William 99 

Ann 87 

Charles 100 

Deborah 81, 87 

Elizabeth 81 

James, 62, 87, 92, 98 

Jonathan 100 

Mary 62, 92, 100 

Ruth 62, 92 

Sarah 100 

William 62, 92 

William Banning 87 

Zachariah 100 
Muskmelon (Delaware) 44 

Joseph 87 

Tristram 56 

William 29 
New England 15, 66 
New Garden Quarterly Meeting 52 
New Jersey 13, 18 

Petition 48-49 

Queries 26, 40-42 

Rules of Discipline 26, 38-40, 60 

Isaac 14, 32, 76, 87 

Joseph 13-32, 76, 87, 100 and 

Mary 14, 32, 76, 100 

Rachel 14, 76 

Rhoda 14, 76 

Alexander 76 

Amelia 76 

Archabald 76 

Charles 76 

Daniel 76 

Elizabeth 76 

Esther 76 

James 76 

John 76 

Joshua 76, 81, 87 

Lovy 76 

Mark 87 

Rhoda 87 

Sarah 76 

Solomon 76 

Tansey 87 

Twyfords 76 

William 76 
North Carolina 13, 30, 40, 41, 44, 

46-53, 54, 57, 67 
North Carolina Yearly Meeting 52, 

Northwest Fork Meeting 38, 64, 65, 

Northwest Fork Monthly Meeting 

64, 65. 66 
Oaths 29, 36, 37 

Jane 68 
Ohio 66 

Ruben 14 

David 28, 88 

Nancy 27, 80 

Martin 28, 47, 88 

Valentine 47, 49, 88 
Pennsylvania 16 

Mary 88, 93 

William 62, 88, 92, 99 
Philadelphia 16, 20 
Piney Grove Monthly Meeting 52 
Plainness 30, 31, 54 

Adah 62, 92 

Henrietta 76 

Isaac 76, 94 

Sarah 62, 76, 92, 94 

William 62, 76, 80, 88, 92, 94, 99 

William, Jr. 76 

Ann 92 

Anna 76 

Daniel 93 

Elizabeth 62, 92 

Isaac 76, 88, 94 

John 76, 81, 88, 92, 93, 99 

John, Jr. 76 

Levin 62, 76, 81, 88, 92 

Noddy 76 



Rhoda 94 

Sarah 76, 88, 92 

William 76, 93 
Preston (Md.) 19,63 

John 62, 81, 88, 94 

Sarah 88, 94 

Wingate 88 

Zachariah 100 

Southy 88, 94 
Quakers 13-65 
Queen Anne's Meeting 56 

Ann 68 

Sophia 80 

Charles 100 

William 100 
Reed Fork 47 

John 56 

Elizabeth 76 

James 76 

John 34, 76 

John, Jr. 76, 88 

Joseph 76 

Mary 63, 76, 88, 92 

Peter 76 

Samuel 88 

Sarah 76 

Solomon 76 

Thomas 76 

William 76, 100 

Nancy 100 

Siny 80 

Thomas 100 

James Whitcomb 46 

Samuel 32, 88 

Marv 88 
Rogerenes 13 

Archibald 63, 88, 93 

Elizabeth 63, 93 

John 88 

Mary 94 

Noah 94 

William 94 


Martha 56, 59 

Isaiah 68 

Ruth 68 

Elisabeth 88 

Mary 80 

Ariminta 76 

Elijah 63, 76, 80, 88, 92 

Esther 63, 76, 88, 92 

Nathan 76 

Rachel 76 

Rachel 80 

Charles 98 

Daniel 98 

Deborah 98 

Lydia 99 

Nehemiah 57, 98 

Noah 98 

Wilson 98 

Job 22, 48, 52, 54 

Deborah 88, 94 

Elizabeth 94 

Jonathan 63, 92 

Margaret 63, 92 

Isaac 88 

Elizabeth 100 


Uriah 100 
Slavery 18-22, 25-27, 55 

John 21, 22, 25 

Ann 76 

Caleb 76 

Daniel 76 

Frances 80 

James 99 

Joshua 76, 88, 98 

Joshua, Jr. 76 

Levin 88 

Mary 88 

Matthew 88 
Southern Quarterly Meeting 63, 65, 



South Carolina 13, 51, 52, 54, 57, 67 

Rachel 88 

Thomas 88 

James 88 

Jarvis 53, 88 

Deborah 99 

Joseph 28, 46, 49, 88 

Richard 28, 88 

Anna 76, 94 

Beauchamp 66, 76, 80, 81, 88, 
94, 98 

Chloe 76 

Deborah 76, 88 

Elizabeth 94, 98 

Esther 81, 88 

James 76, 94, 98 

John 88, 98 

Lydia 76 

Mary 76, 94, 98 

Peter 76, 94 

Sarah 76, 88, 94 

Thomas 34, 57, 76, 80, 88, 94, 98 

Ann 76 

Azel 76 

Daniel 76, 98 

James 77, 88 

Jonathan 77, 98 

Mary 63, 76, 77, 98 

Rachael 77 

Rebekah 76 

Robinson 77, 88 

Rhoda 77, 98 

Sarah 77, 98 

William 57, 77, 88, 98 

Charles 88 

Daniel 77, 80 

Daniel, Jr. 77 

David 28, 88 

Florence 28, 88 

Isaac 77 

John 77, 88 

Joseph 77 

Levin 88 

Margaret 77 

Mary 77, 88 

Owen 77, 81, 88, 99 

Sarah 77, 88 
Sussex County (Del.) 33, 35, 44, 64, 

80, 81 

Adah 77, 93 

Daniel 99 

Esther 77, 93 

Harmon 99 

Henry 57, 77, 93, 99 

Henry, Jr. 99 

James 99 

John 77, 93 

Johnson 63, 77, 80, 88, 92, 99 

Levin 77, 99 

Mary 63, 77, 88, 92 

Mynta 77, 93 

Rhoda 77, 89, 99 

Sarah 63, 77, 92, 93, 99 

Solomon 77, 93 

William 88, 99 

Lydia 89 
Talbot County <Md.) 19, 21, 56, 64, 


Anna 100 

Esther 100 
Third Haven Meeting 56 
Third Haven Monthly Meeting 56, 

57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65 

Benjamin 89 

Benjamin 77 

Celia 77 

Elizabeth 77 

Henry 77 

Sarah 77 

Thomas 77 
Tuckahoe Meeting 19, 56 
Tuckahoe Neck Meeting 38. 65 

Esther 28, 89 

Richard 26, 89 

Ebenezar 77 

Henry 77 

Jane 77 

Mary 77 

Covil 32, 89, 100 



Mary 13 

Nathaniel 13 

Archibald L. 89 

Elizabeth 63, 66, 89, 92, 94 

Jonathan 66, 81, 89, 94 

Sarah 81 

Solomon 89 

Thomas 47 

Zorobabe Smith 89 

Thomas 94 

Wilson 66, 68 

Celia 63, 89, 92, 98 

John 77 89, 93, 94 

John Jr. 77 

Joseph 77, 89 

Joshua 93 

Mary 77, 80 

Nathan 77 

Pheba 94 

Richard 63, 77, 81, 89, 92 

Sarah 63, 92 

William 93 

Mary 80 
Virginia 57 

Virginia Yearly Meeting 56 
WADDEL, Mary 99 
WALKER, Ariminta 77 

James 77 

John 77, 89 

John Jr. 77 

Aney 81 
War 30, 36 

Ann(e) 77, 80, 99 

Daniel 57, 77, 89, 99 

Esther 77 

Henry 57, 77, 81, 89, 98, 99 

Henry Jr. 77, 99 

James 77, 89, 94, 99 

Lucretia 94 

Lydia 99 

Mary 77, 89, 99 

Rachel 77, 99 

Richard 77, 99 

Sarah 77 

Amos 77 

Baley 77 

Elizabeth 77 

John 77 

Johnson 77 

Lidy 77 

Lily 77 

Marget 77 

Mary 78 

Prisilla 77 

Rhoda 78 

William 34, 77, 89, 98 

William Jr. 78 

Thomas 89 

James 89 

John 14 
West Indies 57 

Western Shore of Maryland 16, 56 

Anthony 29, 41, 63, 78, 92, 93 

Anthony Jr. 78 

Arthur 93 

Byng (Bing) 78, 92 

Daniel 78, 93 

Elizabeth 78, 92 

Euphama 78, 92 

Isaac 78, 93 

Sophia 63, 78, 92 

Talitha 78 

William 78, 92 

William 47, 50 

Winlock 14 

Joshua 89 

George 14 

Anthony 41 

Alexander 100 

John 52, 56 

Adah 94 

Bartholomew 78 

Celia 94 

Delilah 89, 94 

Eleanor 89 

John 78 

John Jr. 78 

Joshua 94 

Lavisa 78 

115 — 


Mary 94 

Morgan 44 

Newell 78 

Rachel 78 

Sarah 78, 94 

Thomas 98 

William 80, 89, 94 

Andrew 78, 89 

Andrew, Jr. 78 

Anne 78, 89 

Elic 78, 98 

Jesse 78, 89, 98 

Joshua 78, 98 

Mary 78, 89 

Milby 78, 98 

Milley 78, 89, 98 

Rhoda 78 

Roger 78 

Sarah 78 

Shadrich 78, 98 

Sina(i) 78, 89, 98 

Thomas 57, 78, 80, 98 

Thomas Jr. 78, 89, 98 

William 78, 81, 89 

Prudence 98 

Ann(e) 63, 78, 89, 92 

Arimanti 80 

Catharine 89 

Daniel 99 

Elisha 65, 99 

Elizabeth 89, 94 

George 99 

Hannah 78, 81, 89 

Jacob 93 

James 63, 66, 78, 81, 89, 92, 99 

James Jr. 92, 99 

John 63, 78, 89, 92, 99 

Jonathan 57, 99 

Jonathan Jr. 99 

Joshua 99 

Levina 99 

Lydia 98, 99 

Mary 78, 89, 94, 99 

Nathan 93 

Peter 99 

Rachel 78, 89, 92, 99 

Rebeccah 63, 89, 92, 94, 99 

Sarah 63, 89, 92 

Solomon 57, 80, 89, 99 

Solomon Jr. 99 

Tabitha 100 

William 63, 78, 89, 92, 99 

William Jr. 78, 92 
Wolf's Island Creek 47 

John 16, 18-23, 25, 26, 30, 38, 55, 

John 89 

Aaron 93 

Ann 78, 81, 89, 93, 94, 98, 99 

Anna 89 

Celia 80, 89, 93 

Charles 78, 98 

Daniel 63, 80, 89, 92, 94, 98, 99 

Edward 89 

Elisha 89, 93 

Elizabeth 63, 78, 92, 99 

Esther 63, 78, 89, 92, 99 

Euphama 90 

Harris 93 

Hatfield 63, 66, 78, 81, 90, 92, 98 

Jacob 63, 78, 80, 90, 92, 99 

James 63, 78, 80, 90, 92, 93, 94, 

John 28, 63, 78, 80, 90, 92, 94, 99 

Lemuel 57, 78, 90, 98, 99 

Levin 28, 57, 78, 80, 90, 98, 99 

Levin Jr. 90, 98 

Levina 90 

Levisa 93 

Lovey 90 

Lucrecia 63, 92 

Lydia 93 

Mary 63, 78, 81, 90, 92, 93, 98, 99 

Millah 93 

Nathan 93 

Peter 78, 90, 93, 98 

Rachel 78, 80, 99 

Rhoda 63, 90, 92, 93, 99 

Roger 57, 78, 90, 93, 98, 99 

Samuel 93 

Sarah 63, 78, 80, 90, 92, 93, 99 

Selah 78 

Tilghman 93 

William 28, 78, 90, 93 

William James 94 

Willis 78, 93 

Martha 56 

— 116 



OCT 2 8 68 

SEP 1 6 

FEB 9 '80 


Demco 293-5